> On 29 Jun 2018, at 18:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> +1 for shortening it as proposed by Peter. The existing arrangement
> made sense when it was first written, when there were only about three
> individual options IIRC. Now it's just confusing, especially since you
> can't tell very easily whether any of the individual options were
> intentionally omitted from the list. It will not get better with
> more options, either.
Marking this "Waiting for Author” awaiting an update version expanding with the
above comment.
cheers ./daniel
