-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Joshua D. Drake a écrit : > 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.
is -j already affected ? > >> cheers >> >> andrew >> - -- Cédric Villemain Administrateur de Base de Données Cel: +33 (0)6 74 15 56 53 http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmUcvUACgkQo/dppWjpEvzT5gCg44yo8CbfT3AAevzbPXphqu3K oeUAnAy6/epLlwe7DWWneIB8XVeDIu/+ =Q8iq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
