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?
They do not use the same libpq-level approach (PQsendQuery vs
PQsendQueryParams), so they are not exercising the same type of client?
Pgbench is also about testing libpq performance.
--
Fabien.
