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?
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
