Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore accepts -j -1

2017-01-11 Thread Stephen Frost
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore accepts -j -1

2017-01-11 Thread Stephen Frost
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore accepts -j -1

2017-01-11 Thread Stephen Frost
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore accepts -j -1

2017-01-10 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
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

[HACKERS] pg_restore accepts -j -1

2017-01-09 Thread Stephen Frost
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