Re: parallel pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua Drake
Subject Re: parallel pg_restore
Date
Msg-id 20080923124320.27d27b07@jd-laptop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: parallel pg_restore  ("Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@cuci.nl>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:14:33 +0200
"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@cuci.nl> wrote:

> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>There are in fact very few letters available, as we've been fairly 
> >>profligate in our use of option letters in the pg_dump suite.
> 
> >>j and m happen to be two of those that are available.
> 
> >--max-workers
> 
> Perhaps, but please do not use that as justification for using -m.
> That would be equally silly as abbreviating "number of workers" to -n.

Actually I came up with it because it coincides with existing
terminology. Autovacuum has the concept of max_workers.

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ron Mayer
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL future ideas
Next
From: Joshua Drake
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore