Re: pg_restore --multi-thread

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:47 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >   
> >> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> >>     
> >>> The implementation is actually different across platforms: on Windows 
> >>> the workers are genuine threads, while elsewhere they are forked 
> >>> children in the same fashion as the backend (non-EXEC_BACKEND case). In 
> >>> either case, the program will use up to NUM concurrent connections to 
> >>> the server.
> >>>       
> >> How about calling it --num-connections or something like that?  I agree
> >> with Peter that "thread" is not the best terminology on platforms where
> >> there is no threading involved.
> >>     
> >
> > --num-workers or --num-connections would both work.
> >
> >   
> 
> *shrug* whatever. What should the short option be (if any?). -n is 
> taken, so -N ?

Works for me.

> 
> cheers
> 
> andrew
> 
-- 
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997