Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation

From: Tatsuro Yamada <yamatattsu(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation
Date: 2026-01-11 04:01:33
Message-ID: CAOKkKFuj1npRjG0c0-2dx5gLkuA2K3WjOMhdbZ5KMX1Snxy1yA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Michael-san,

On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 1:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 11:48:21AM +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:
> > To double-check, I also looked at the documentation for vacuumdb,
> > reindexdb, and pg_upgrade, and all of them use "njobs".
>
> As far as I can see:
> $ cd doc && git grep "number-of-jobs" | wc -l
> 3
> $ cd doc && git grep "njobs" | wc -l
> 14
>
> While it is minor, I agree that we could just make things consistent
> across the board as you are suggesting, so LGTM.

Thanks!
Yeah, it's minor but there is a quote that says God is in the details.

Regards,
Tatsuro Yamada

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2026-01-11 04:14:51 Re: LLVM JITLink attempt II (WIP)
Previous Message John Naylor 2026-01-11 01:40:13 Re: New commitfest app release on August 19th