Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> > More importantly, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. It seems more
> > like a footgun that will potentially try to launch thousands of
> > simultaneous restore connections. I should have thought that
> > optimal performance would be reached at some small multiple (say
> > maybe 2?) of the number of CPUs on the server. You could achieve
> > unlimited parallelism by saying something like --jobs=99999, but
> > I'd rather that were done very explicitly instead of as the default
> > value of the parameter.
> OK, sounds best.
I will not argue vehemently here but I will say that "jobs" doesn't
seem correct. The term "workers" seems more appropriate.
Joshua D. Drake
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate