Ashutosh,
* Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost 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 paral
Ashutosh,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> Attached patch adds the same check to pg_restore that's in pg_dump
> already. Looks like it should back-patch to 9.3 pretty cleanly and I'll
> add a similar check for 9.2.
After playing with this, it seems entirely wrong to wait until after
Ashutosh,
* Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost 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 paral
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost 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 ha
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