On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
--num-workers or --num-connections would both work. Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
