On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > 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.
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.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
