Re: parallel pg_restore

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:24:28 +0100
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> 
> > > More importantly, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. It seems more
> > > like a footgun that will potentially try to launch thousands of
> > > simultaneous restore connections. I should have thought that
> > > optimal performance would be reached at some small multiple (say
> > > maybe 2?) of the number of CPUs on the server. You could achieve
> > > unlimited parallelism by saying something like --jobs=99999, but
> > > I'd rather that were done very explicitly instead of as the default
> > > value of the parameter.
> > 
> > OK, sounds best.
> > 
> 
> I will not argue vehemently here but I will say that "jobs" doesn't
> seem correct. The term "workers" seems more appropriate.

Agreed, but most utilities have "j" free but not w, p, t or other
letters that might be synonyms.

j is at least used for exactly this purpose in other tools.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support