Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
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 22:33:47
Message-ID: 49EF9B4B.4020505@dunslane.net
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.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
>

There was no intention to follow Make.

And I think it's far far too early to be planning "improvements" of this
kind. We need to see how it gets used in the field.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-22 22:46:32 Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-04-22 22:29:46 Re: pg_restore -j <nothing>