Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, I did:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-05/msg00098.php
I see what happened. The author said he had made the change, but the
patch didn't contain it:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-05/msg00132.php
> > FWIW I think you should still provide dblink_current_query, even if it's
> >
> > only a wrapper over current_query(), for backwards compatibility.
>
> Good point. Done as suggested (I think, or did you mean also the change
> of instances to use current_query()?). Replaced dblink_current_query
> with an SQL procedure wrapper, I assume that's the most efficient way of
> doing it?
So do we document it or just add a function entry point?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
