Re: [PATCHES] Implemented current_query

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 me, and documenting it 
> > as such would allow you to expose the functionality without the possible 
> > complaints...
> 
> client_query perhaps?

Yea, that is consistent with what we do with other functions.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +