Re: Stale references to guc.c in comments/tests

> On 27 Feb 2023, at 17:59, Tom Lane <tgl@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