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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tatsuro Yamada <yamatattsu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation
Date: 2026-01-10 04:03:38
Message-ID: aWHPmoA-4K7giZjv@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Schneider 2026-01-10 04:22:41 static tracepoints in pgstat_report_wait_start/end
Previous Message Tatsuro Yamada 2026-01-10 03:14:33 Re: [PATCH] psql: add \dcs to list all constraints