On 3/11/19 6:07 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:37, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
> <ilmari@ilmari.org> wrote:
>> David Rowley <david.rowley@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