| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | 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 18:33:26 |
| Message-ID: | 5b027654-3f3c-5ead-f4ca-f22a3ba997ba@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30/11/2018 15:42, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> 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.
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?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2018-11-30 18:53:18 | [PATCH] Log CSV by default |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-11-30 18:32:27 | Re: [HACKERS] proposal - Default namespaces for XPath expressions (PostgreSQL 11) |