Andrew Dunstan <and...@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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
