Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

pg_restore -j <nothing>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: pg_restore -j <nothing>
Date: 2009-04-22 22:26:04
Message-ID: 20090422222604.GA5814@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.)

Thoughts?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-04-22 22:29:46
Subject: Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-04-22 21:44:19
Subject: Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group