Le lundi 22 septembre 2008, Joshua Drake a écrit : > I will not argue vehemently here but I will say that "jobs" doesn't > seem correct. The term "workers" seems more appropriate.
Mmmm, it sounds like it depends on the implementation (and how all workers will share the same serializable transaction or just be independant jobs), but my point here is more about giving the user a name they are used to. Like in "oh, pg_restore -j, I see, thanks". Now, if your argument is that the make concept of job does not match the parallel pg_restore concept of workers, I'll simply bow to your choice: baring other "limits", English not being my natural language makes it hard for me to follow there ;) Regards, -- dim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
