Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore accepts -j -1

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> For reasons which seem likely to be entirely unintentional, pg_restore
> will accept a '-1' for -j:
>
> pg_restore -j -1
>
> This seems to result in the parallel state being NULL and so things
> don't outright break, but it hardly seems likely to be what the user was
> asking for- my guess is that they actually wanted "parallel, single
> transaction", which we don't actually support:
>
> -> pg_restore -j 2 -1
> pg_restore: cannot specify both --single-transaction and multiple jobs
>
> We also don't accept -1 for pg_dump:
>
> -> pg_dump -j -1
> pg_dump: invalid number of parallel jobs
>
> If I'm missing something, please let me know, otherwise I'll plan to put
> the same check into pg_restore which exists in pg_dump.

Both the code blocks were added by 9e257a18, but I don't see any
description of why they are different in pg_dump.c and pg_restore.c.
In fact per comments in pg_restore.c, that condition should be same as
pg_dump.c. I am not sure whether it's just for windows specific
condition or the whole block. But I don't see any reason not to
replicate the same conditions in pg_restore.c

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company