| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional current timestamp values |
| Date: | 2006-03-31 04:07:22 |
| Message-ID: | 2922.1143778042@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>>> "statement" isn't a great name for the units
>>> that we are actually processing. We're really wanting to do these
>>> things once per client command, or maybe per client query would be
>>> a better name.
>>
>> Right.
> What about "query string"? If you want to include the term "client", I
> would find "client query string" less confusing than "client command" or
> "client query".
"Query string" is a term we've used in the past, and it shows up in the
source code. I could live with that, but I'm not sure if it's got any
good connotations for people who haven't got their hands dirty in the
code ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-03-31 04:09:32 | Re: autovacuum: could not access status of transaction |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-03-31 02:01:18 | Re: autovacuum: could not access status of transaction |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wheeler | 2006-03-31 19:46:09 | Suggestion: Which Binary? |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2006-03-30 23:50:02 | Re: Additional current timestamp values |