Re: Possible mistake in 'Using EXPLAIN' section

"James Shaw"  writes:
>> I'm sorry, I misunderstood.  I've reread, and understand where the
>> extra 100 comes from now.  Perhaps this could be reworded:
>> ...

> Were there any thoughts on this?  I was hoping this might be included in the
> manual, since I felt it was somewhat clearer.

Done, sorry for not getting to it sooner.

			regards, tom lane