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.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
