Re: parallel pg_restore

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore
Date: 2008-09-23 05:40:10
Message-ID: 48D8813A.5060202@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> There are in fact very few letters available, as we've been fairly
> profligate in our use of option letters in the pg_dump suite.
>
> j and m happen to be two of those that are available.

--max-workers

Max makes sense because the number of workers won't be consistent, a
worker may not have a job to do. It is also consistent with
auto_vacuum_max_workers.

Joshua D. Drake

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen R. van den Berg 2008-09-23 07:14:33 Re: parallel pg_restore
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-23 05:15:36 Re: hash index improving v3