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 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. > > How about client_request() > > It's then clear that a request can be made up of many statements, which > will be executed in turn.
The problem with client_request() is that it is not clear it is a query --- it could be a disonnection or cancel request, for example. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
