On 26.01.23 19:05, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Oh, that is interesting. In that case, this is not the right patch. We
>> should proceed with my previous patch in [0] then.
> WFM.
>
> I still think it'd be slightly more legible if we tested the prefix for
> postgres|pgsql once, rather than do the per-variable .contains() checks on the
> "combined" path.
Ok, committed with that change.
