| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |
| Date: | 2009-02-12 16:37:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1234456658.9467.27.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-02-12 16:45:55 | Re: some questions about SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-12 16:32:40 | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |