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.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
>   


There was no intention to follow Make.

And I think it's far far too early to be planning "improvements" of this 
kind. We need to see how it gets used in the field.

cheers

andrew