Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> While I think "jobs" isn't a totally accurate description, I would still
> propose to use -j/--jobs for the option name, because it is neutral about the
> implementation and has a strong precedent as being used to increase the
> parallelization to get the work done faster. I also noticed that Andrew D.
> used "jobs" in his own emails to comment on the feature. :-)
>
> The attached patch also updated the documentation to give some additional
> advice about which numbers to use.
>
>
Looks reasonable.
cheers
andrew
