| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tomas Doran <bobtfish(at)bobtfish(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query |
| Date: | 2008-03-28 19:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1206731399.4285.1781.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 14:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Tomas Doran wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 Mar 2008, at 17:23, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > >> Perhaps we could name it received_query() to indicate it is what the
> > >> backend received and it not necessarily the _current_ query.
> > >
> > > reveived_query() sounds like a very sane name for me, and documenting it
> > > as such would allow you to expose the functionality without the possible
> > > complaints...
> >
> > client_query perhaps?
>
> Yea, that is consistent with what we do with other functions.
How about client_request()
It's then clear that a request can be made up of many statements, which
will be executed in turn.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-28 19:26:21 | Re: [PATCHES] Text <-> C string |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-03-28 18:58:14 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-28 19:26:21 | Re: [PATCHES] Text <-> C string |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-28 18:32:27 | Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query |