Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
