| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench doc fix |
| Date: | 2018-11-30 14:42:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+q6zcUC0ejJ9XrFU6AekFgh6O7uKg4g_PKTmskM_v7BoKPWMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 1:08 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lætitia Avrot | 2018-11-30 14:47:23 | Re: Markdown format output for psql, design notes |
| Previous Message | Sanyo Moura | 2018-11-30 14:37:26 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |