Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>, Guillaume LELARGE <gleu@wanadoo.fr>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andrew Gould <andrewgould@yahoo.com>
Date: 2003-06-25T14:58:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > >>I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at >>least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special >>keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? > > Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or > required to work 100%, into a supported feature. I don't think > debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system > is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case. > And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it > supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query? > > I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a > larger can of worms than you probably think. > Hmmm. Good points. This one may best wait for 7.5 at least. Does it make sense to turn it into a TODO? * promote debug_query_string into a documented, supported feature Anyone who *does* use the function from dblink, please be sure to report circumstances where dblink_current_query() returns something other than what you would expect. Thanks, Joe