Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Additional current timestamp values

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-03-31 04:09:32
Subject: Re: autovacuum: could not access status of transaction
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-03-31 02:01:18
Subject: Re: autovacuum: could not access status of transaction

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: David WheelerDate: 2006-03-31 19:46:09
Subject: Suggestion: Which Binary?
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2006-03-30 23:50:02
Subject: Re: Additional current timestamp values

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group