> 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"? "prepared: use extended query protocol with reused prepared statements" Because "named" prepared statements can be (unlike unnamed prepared statements) reused repeatably, it implies "reused". So using both "named" and "reused" sounds a little bit redundant to me. If we choose one of them, I prefer "reused" since it more explicitly stats the difference between "-M extended" and "-M prepared". Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
