| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Clément Prévost <prevostclement(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 20:03:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZkewFoKiF9Oz0CtVMw0YWPgekRoA_wtnU3_QjdHfJyHg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2016-06-20 20:08:46 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-06-20 20:00:15 | Re: 10.0 |