Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> 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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
