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
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-28 21:51:43|
|Subject: Third thoughts about the DISTINCT MAX() problem|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-28 19:47:07|
|Subject: Re: Is psql command line interface broken on HEAD? |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum||Date: 2008-03-29 01:40:57|
|Subject: create language ... if not exists|
|Previous:||From: Brendan Jurd||Date: 2008-03-28 19:40:46|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Text <-> C string|