On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:24:28 +0100 Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
