On Friday 24 July 2009 18:15:00 Tom Lane wrote:
> Another question is that this proposal effectively redefines the
> current_query column as not the "current" query, but something that
> might be better be described as "latest_query". Should we change the
> name? We'd probably break some client code if we did, but on the other
> hand the semantics change might break such code anyway. Intentional
> breakage might not be such a bad thing if it forces people to take a
> fresh look at their code.
That breakage could be pretty widespread, though. Maybe have current_query
and last_query.
