| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |
| Date: | 2009-02-12 16:47:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4994529F.80002@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 ?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dickson S. Guedes | 2009-02-12 16:49:54 | 64 bit PostgreSQL 8.3.6 build on AIX 5300 with GCC 4.2.0 - fail on pg_regress |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-02-12 16:45:55 | Re: some questions about SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE |