On 30/11/2018 15:42, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 1:08 AM Tatsuo Ishii <is...@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
