Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > >>> I think the agreement was that dblink_current_query was to be > > > >>> implemented on top of this. In fact I don't see any reason not to. > > > OK. Did someone mention this before because I don't remember it and the > > patch removed the dblink usage. Do we continue to document the > > function? > > Yes, I did: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-05/msg00098.php
I see what happened. The author said he had made the change, but the patch didn't contain it: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-05/msg00132.php > > FWIW I think you should still provide dblink_current_query, even if it's > > > > only a wrapper over current_query(), for backwards compatibility. > > Good point. Done as suggested (I think, or did you mean also the change > of instances to use current_query()?). Replaced dblink_current_query > with an SQL procedure wrapper, I assume that's the most efficient way of > doing it? So do we document it or just add a function entry point? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
