Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> I think the agreement was that dblink_current_query was to be > >>> implemented on top of this. In fact I don't see any reason not to. > >> > >> Really? It seemed like just duplicate functionality. > > > It's called "backwards compatibility". The nice thing about it is that > > it doesn't cost us any extra code. > > Indeed. It's just silly to break dblink users when there's no need.
OK. Did someone mention this before because I don't remember it and the patch removed the dblink usage. Do we continue to document the function? -- 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 ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
