On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:37, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilm...@ilmari.org> wrote: > > David Rowley <david.row...@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
