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

Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Susanne Ebrecht <susanne(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #
Date: 2012-01-17 13:55:47
Message-ID: 4F157DE3.2070801@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/17/2012 07:33 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>  wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 01:18:53 PM Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
>>> I would prefer to have an option that the user is able to tell on how much
>>> cores it should be shared. Something like --share-cores=N.
>> Uhm. -j # does exactly that or am I missing your point?
>>
> not really.
>
> if you have 12 cores and you say -j 12 you would have 1 process per
> core, with Susanne's suggestion, AFAIUI, you can say -j 12
> --shared-cores=6... so you would only use 6 cores of the 12 and have 2
> processes per core
>

That looks messy. IMNSHO it should work just like pg_restore's -j.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-01-17 14:04:47
Subject: Re: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-01-17 13:45:37
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parameterized inner paths

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