Re: pgbench doc fix

>>>> 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?

They do not use the same libpq-level approach (PQsendQuery vs 
PQsendQueryParams), so they are not exercising the same type of client? 
Pgbench is also about testing libpq performance.

-- 
Fabien.