From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
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 22:33:47 |
Message-ID: | 49EF9B4B.4020505@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
There was no intention to follow Make.
And I think it's far far too early to be planning "improvements" of this
kind. We need to see how it gets used in the field.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-22 22:46:32 | Re: pg_restore -j <nothing> |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-04-22 22:29:46 | Re: pg_restore -j <nothing> |