| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr |
| Cc: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench doc fix |
| Date: | 2018-11-03 00:08:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20181103.090825.1587387950710622632.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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"?
"prepared: use extended query protocol with reused prepared statements"
Because "named" prepared statements can be (unlike unnamed prepared
statements) reused repeatably, it implies "reused". So using both
"named" and "reused" sounds a little bit redundant to me. If we choose
one of them, I prefer "reused" since it more explicitly stats the
difference between "-M extended" and "-M prepared".
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-03 00:14:23 | First-draft release notes for back-branch releases |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-11-03 00:00:47 | Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons |