Re: pg_restore -j

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.)

An unlimited pg_restore -j seems pretty scary.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +