> On 29 Jun 2018, at 18:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > +1 for shortening it as proposed by Peter. The existing arrangement > made sense when it was first written, when there were only about three > individual options IIRC. Now it's just confusing, especially since you > can't tell very easily whether any of the individual options were > intentionally omitted from the list. It will not get better with > more options, either.
Marking this "Waiting for Author” awaiting an update version expanding with the above comment. cheers ./daniel
