> So I do not think a more precise wording harms. Maybe: "prepared: use
> extended query protocol with REUSED named prepared statements" would
> be even less slightly ambiguous.
I like this. But maybe we can remove "named"?
"prepared: use extended query protocol with reused prepared statements"
Because "named" prepared statements can be (unlike unnamed prepared
statements) reused repeatably, it implies "reused". So using both
"named" and "reused" sounds a little bit redundant to me. If we choose
one of them, I prefer "reused" since it more explicitly stats the
difference between "-M extended" and "-M prepared".
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
