On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I don't think my entire post depends solely upon this being a GUC though.
I've burned too many brain cells on this already, though, to dive much
Internal or external I do think the number and type of flags described
here, for the purposes described, seems undesirable from an architectural
standpoint. I do not and cannot offer up more than that generally due to
knowledge and resource constraints. I tried to frame things up relative to
my understanding of existing, non-parallel, idioms, both to understand it
better myself and to throw out another POV from a fresh perspective. I'll
admit its one with some drawbacks but its offered in good faith.
Please do with it as you will and accept my apology for the poor choice