Re: pg_restore --multi-thread

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:47 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > --num-workers or --num-connections would both work.
> >
> >
>
> *shrug* whatever. What should the short option be (if any?). -n is
> taken, so -N ?

Works for me.

>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997