Ashutosh, * Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > 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
Ok, I've pushed the change. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
