Re: pg_restore --multi-thread

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_restore --multi-thread
Date: 2009-02-12 16:32:40
Message-ID: 11115.1234456360@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2009-02-12 16:37:38 Re: pg_restore --multi-thread
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-02-12 16:30:27 pg_migrator and handling dropped columns