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.
​Point taken.

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
of colloquialism.

David J.

Reply via email to