On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > The entire theory here looks whacked - and seems to fall into the "GUCs > controlling results" bucket of undesirable things.
As far as I can see, this entire email is totally wrong and off-base, because the whole thing seems to be written on the presumption that single_copy is a GUC, when it's actually a structure member. If there was some confusion about that, you could have spent 5 seconds running "git grep" before writing this email, or you could have tried "SET single_copy" and discovered, hey, there's no such GUC. Furthermore, I think that describing something that you obviously haven't taken any time to understand as "whacked" is not very nice. For that matter, I think that describing something you *have* taken time to understand as "whacked" is not very nice. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
