Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with rules

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at
> least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special
> keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()?

Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or
required to work 100%, into a supported feature. I don't think
debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system
is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case.
And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it
supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query?

I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a
larger can of worms than you probably think.

regards, tom lane