> 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.
