On 3/11/19 6:07 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:37, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker > <ilm...@ilmari.org> wrote: >> David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> I think some comments in the area to explain the 0th is for the sql >>> would be a good idea too, that might stop any confusion in the >>> future. I see that's documented in the struct header comment, but >>> maybe worth a small note around that error message just to confirm the >>> - 1 is not a mistake, and neither is the >= MAX_ARGS. >> I have done this in the updated version of the patch, attached. >> Setting back to NR. > The patch looks good to me. I'm happy for it to be marked as ready for > committer. Fabien, do you want to have another look? >
I think we've spent enough time on this. Committed with minor changes. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
