Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

On 11/01/2011 09:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon@2ndQuadrant.com>  writes:
>> Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column?
>> That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything.
> That would cost twice as much shared memory for query strings, and twice
> as much time to update the strings, for what seems pretty marginal
> value.  I'm for just redefining the query field as "current or last
> query".

+1

> I could go either way on whether to rename it.

Rename it please. "current_query" will just be wrong. I'd be inclined 
just to call it "query" or "query_string" and leave it to the docs to 
define the exact semantics.

cheers

andrew