Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tatsuro Yamada
Subject Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation
Date
Msg-id CAOKkKFuj1npRjG0c0-2dx5gLkuA2K3WjOMhdbZ5KMX1Snxy1yA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: New commitfest app release on August 19th
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: LLVM JITLink attempt II (WIP)