Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes: > I thought about adjusting it, but I didn't see what it made sense to > adjust it to. It still is the parameter used for parameter I/O and > parsing/planning, so the existing text isn't wrong. It will possibly > also get reused for execution, but the previous statement has a > lengthy comment on that, so it didn't seem worth recapitulating here.
Ah yes, the previous comment is not far away, so it's easy to read it that way. Agreed. > Actually, I did, but the change was in the second patch file attached > to the same email, which maybe you missed? Combined patch attached. Oops, I missed it, yes. Looks good to me. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
