On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@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