Re: [HACKERS] Comment on GatherPath.single_copy

2016-09-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Wed, 31 Aug 2016 07:26:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in > <5934.1472642...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> Robert Haas writes: >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] Comment on GatherPath.single_copy

2016-09-01 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
At Wed, 31 Aug 2016 07:26:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in <5934.1472642...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Robert Haas writes: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert, could you fix the documentation for that field so it's >

Re: [HACKERS] Comment on GatherPath.single_copy

2016-08-31 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert, could you fix the documentation for that field so it's >> intelligible? > Uh, maybe. The trick, as you've already noted, is finding something > better. Maybe this: > -

Re: [HACKERS] Comment on GatherPath.single_copy

2016-08-31 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes: >> - boolsingle_copy;/* path must not be executed >1x */ >> + boolsingle_copy;/* path must not span on multiple >> processes

Re: [HACKERS] Comment on GatherPath.single_copy

2016-08-30 Thread Tom Lane
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes: > - boolsingle_copy;/* path must not be executed >1x */ > + boolsingle_copy;/* path must not span on multiple > processes */ I agree that the existing comment sucks, but this isn't a lot better

[HACKERS] Comment on GatherPath.single_copy

2016-08-29 Thread Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello. The comment on GatherPath.single_copy is the following. === /* * GatherPath runs several copies of a plan in parallel and collects the * results. The parallel leader may also execute the plan, unless the * single_copy flag is set. */ typedef struct GatherPath { Path