| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-04-22 22:29:46 | Re: pg_restore -j <nothing> |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-22 21:44:19 | Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |