On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@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". I could go either way on whether to rename it.
That's a good reason. > If anyone's really hot about backward compatibility, it would not be > very hard to create a view that replicates the old behavior working > from a "state" column and a current-or-last-query column. I'm in favour of change, when that has a purpose, just like you. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
