Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>
Date: 2009-04-22 22:46:32
Message-ID: 27324.1240440392@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I just noticed (!) that Make accepts an argument-less -j option, which
>> it takes to mean "use as many parallel jobs as possible".

> An unlimited pg_restore -j seems pretty scary.

Yeah. Even if Make has a sane way to estimate how many jobs it should
use, I'm not sure that pg_restore does. (The most obvious heuristic
for Make is to try to find out how many CPUs there are --- but at
least it's running on the same machine it's going to be eating CPU
on. pg_restore can't assume that.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-04-22 22:49:14 Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-04-22 22:33:47 Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>