Horton

Re: pg_restore --multi-thread

cedric.villemain@dalibo.com

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Cédric Villemain <cedric.villemain@dalibo.com>
To: jd@commandprompt.com
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-02-12T19:05:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:47 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>>>     
>>>>> The implementation is actually different across platforms: on Windows 
>>>>> the workers are genuine threads, while elsewhere they are forked 
>>>>> children in the same fashion as the backend (non-EXEC_BACKEND case). In 
>>>>> either case, the program will use up to NUM concurrent connections to 
>>>>> the server.
>>>>>       
>>>> How about calling it --num-connections or something like that?  I agree
>>>> with Peter that "thread" is not the best terminology on platforms where
>>>> there is no threading involved.
>>>>     
>>> --num-workers or --num-connections would both work.
>>>
>>>   
>> *shrug* whatever. What should the short option be (if any?). -n is 
>> taken, so -N ?
> 
> Works for me.

is -j already affected ?


> 
>> cheers
>>
>> andrew
>>


- --
Cédric Villemain
Administrateur de Base de Données
Cel: +33 (0)6 74 15 56 53
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmUcvUACgkQo/dppWjpEvzT5gCg44yo8CbfT3AAevzbPXphqu3K
oeUAnAy6/epLlwe7DWWneIB8XVeDIu/+
=Q8iq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----