Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.
I understood the proposal to be "store the previous query in addition
to the current-query-if-any". If that's not what was meant, then my
objection was incorrect. However, like you, I'm pretty dubious of
having two mostly-redundant fields in the view definition, just because
of window width issues.
regards, tom lane