On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, 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".
Not really. You could just store it once in shared memory, and put the complexity in the view definition. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
