| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel pg_restore |
| Date: | 2008-09-22 16:34:32 |
| Message-ID: | 200809221834.34750.dfontaine@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le lundi 22 septembre 2008, Joshua Drake a écrit :
> I will not argue vehemently here but I will say that "jobs" doesn't
> seem correct. The term "workers" seems more appropriate.
Mmmm, it sounds like it depends on the implementation (and how all workers
will share the same serializable transaction or just be independant jobs),
but my point here is more about giving the user a name they are used to.
Like in "oh, pg_restore -j, I see, thanks".
Now, if your argument is that the make concept of job does not match the
parallel pg_restore concept of workers, I'll simply bow to your choice:
baring other "limits", English not being my natural language makes it hard
for me to follow there ;)
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-09-22 17:06:12 | Re: Initial prefetch performance testing |
| Previous Message | Joshua Drake | 2008-09-22 16:30:24 | Re: parallel pg_restore |