On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > 1. >> > + Number of parallel connections to perform the operation. This >> > option will enable the vacuum >> > + operation to run on parallel connections, at a time one table >> > will >> > be operated on one connection. >> > >> > a. How about describing w.r.t asynchronous connections >> > instead of parallel connections? >> >> I don't think "asynchronous" is a good choice of word. > > Agreed. > >>Maybe "simultaneous"? > > Not sure. How about *concurrent* or *multiple*?
multiple isn't right, but we could say concurrent. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
