Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query

Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.

The problem with client_request() is that it is not clear it is a query
--- it could be a disonnection or cancel request, for example.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +