Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uh, I think based on other usage it should be called client_statement().
That is *exactly* the wrong thing, because "statement" specifically
means one SQL statement.
"client_query" seems about the best compromise I've heard so far.
It's too bad we didn
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_que
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 14:32 -0400, 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 receive
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 14:32 -0400, 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 _curre
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 m
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
On 28 Mar 2008, at 17:23, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-05 at 19:48 +0100, Tomas Doran wrote:
As suggested in the TODO list (and as I need the functionality
myself), I have implemented the current_query interface to
debug_query_string.
It actually has been removed f
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-05 at 19:48 +0100, Tomas Doran wrote:
> > As suggested in the TODO list (and as I need the functionality
> > myself), I have implemented the current_query interface to
> > debug_query_string.
It actually has been removed from the TODO list since you saw it
