Re: pg_restore --multi-thread

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>   
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>     
>>> The implementation is actually different across platforms: on Windows 
>>> the workers are genuine threads, while elsewhere they are forked 
>>> children in the same fashion as the backend (non-EXEC_BACKEND case). In 
>>> either case, the program will use up to NUM concurrent connections to 
>>> the server.
>>>       
>> How about calling it --num-connections or something like that?  I agree
>> with Peter that "thread" is not the best terminology on platforms where
>> there is no threading involved.
>>     
>
> --num-workers or --num-connections would both work.
>
>   

*shrug* whatever. What should the short option be (if any?). -n is 
taken, so -N ?

cheers

andrew