On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:47 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > *shrug* whatever. What should the short option be (if any?). -n is > taken, so -N ?
Works for me. > > cheers > > andrew > -- 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
