| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore -j <nothing> |
| Date: | 2009-04-22 22:29:46 |
| Message-ID: | 200904222229.n3MMTkw09773@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.)
An unlimited pg_restore -j seems pretty scary.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-04-22 22:33:47 | Re: pg_restore -j <nothing> |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-04-22 22:26:04 | pg_restore -j <nothing> |