Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query

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.

Uh, I think based on other usage it should be called client_statement().
Peter has us using statement instead of query in many cases.

FYI, log_statement also prints the combined query string.

--
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. +