Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
