Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation
Tatsuro Yamada <yamatattsu@gmail.com>
From: Tatsuro Yamada <yamatattsu@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-01-11T04:01:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi Michael-san, On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 1:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 11:48:21AM +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > > To double-check, I also looked at the documentation for vacuumdb, > > reindexdb, and pg_upgrade, and all of them use "njobs". > > As far as I can see: > $ cd doc && git grep "number-of-jobs" | wc -l > 3 > $ cd doc && git grep "njobs" | wc -l > 14 > > While it is minor, I agree that we could just make things consistent > across the board as you are suggesting, so LGTM. Thanks! Yeah, it's minor but there is a quote that says God is in the details. Regards, Tatsuro Yamada
Commits
-
doc: Improve description of pg_restore --jobs
- 540c39cc56f5 19 (unreleased) landed