pg_restore -j - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject pg_restore -j
Date
Msg-id 20090422222604.GA5814@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: pg_restore -j  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: pg_restore -j  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: pg_restore -j  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

I just noticed (!) that Make accepts an argument-less -j option, which
it takes to mean "use as many parallel jobs as possible".  As far as I
see in our pg_restore code, we don't even accept an argumentless -j
option; was this deviation from the Make precedent on purpose, or were
we just not following Make at all on this?

I have to admit that I'm not really sure whether this kind of usage
would be a reasonable thing for pg_restore to support.

(Even if this was a good idea, I'm not suggesting that it be implemented
for 8.4.  But if it is, then maybe it deserves a TODO entry.)

Thoughts?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_restore -j