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 wrote:
>> >> Robert, could you fix the documentation for that field so it's
>
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
> >> intelligible?
>
> > Uh, maybe. The trick, as you've already
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:
> -boolsingle_copy;/* path must
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 */
>
> I agree that the existing comment sucks, but th
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
(and it will probably not look nice
