On 30/11/2018 15:42, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 1:08 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> 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"?
>
> I also think it makes sense to adjust wording a bit here, and this version
> sounds good (taking into account the commentary about "named"). I'm moving this
> to the next CF, where the question would be if anyone from commiters can agree
> with this point.
I don't see a concrete proposed patch here after the discussion.
Reading the documentation again, we could go for much more detail here.
For example, what's the point of having -M simple vs -M extended?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
