On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Greetings, > > For reasons which seem likely to be entirely unintentional, pg_restore > will accept a '-1' for -j: > > pg_restore -j -1 > > This seems to result in the parallel state being NULL and so things > don't outright break, but it hardly seems likely to be what the user was > asking for- my guess is that they actually wanted "parallel, single > transaction", which we don't actually support: > > -> pg_restore -j 2 -1 > pg_restore: cannot specify both --single-transaction and multiple jobs > > We also don't accept -1 for pg_dump: > > -> pg_dump -j -1 > pg_dump: invalid number of parallel jobs > > If I'm missing something, please let me know, otherwise I'll plan to put > the same check into pg_restore which exists in pg_dump.
Both the code blocks were added by 9e257a18, but I don't see any description of why they are different in pg_dump.c and pg_restore.c. In fact per comments in pg_restore.c, that condition should be same as pg_dump.c. I am not sure whether it's just for windows specific condition or the whole block. But I don't see any reason not to replicate the same conditions in pg_restore.c -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
