Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
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 22:29:46
Message-ID: 200904222229.n3MMTkw09773@momjian.us
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.)

An unlimited pg_restore -j seems pretty scary.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-04-22 22:33:47 Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-04-22 22:26:04 pg_restore -j <nothing>