> On 27 Feb 2023, at 17:59, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The grammar is a bit off ("the GUC definition" would read better),
> but really I think the wording was vague already and we should tighten
> it up. Can we specify exactly which GUC variable(s) we're talking about?Specifying the GUCs in question is a good idea, done in the attached. I'm not sure the phrasing is spot-on though, but I can't think of a better one. If you can think of a better one I'm all ears. -- Daniel Gustafsson
v3-0001-Fix-outdated-references-to-guc.c.patch
Description: Binary data
