Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:48:53 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_restore accepts -j -1
Message-ID: <20170111204853.GR18360@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20170110044815.GC18360@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CAFjFpRdSP_N8ZL=sXGvmZR1hF=PuieLyK3Xsvh=jr1v2Kf-70w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/GLpYSe53BI9iu8K"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFjFpRdSP_N8ZL=sXGvmZR1hF=PuieLyK3Xsvh=jr1v2Kf-70w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--/GLpYSe53BI9iu8K
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ashutosh,

* Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrot=
e:
> > 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 they actually wanted "parallel, single
> > transaction", which we don't actually support:
> >
> > -> pg_restore -j 2 -1
> > pg_restore: cannot specify both --single-transaction and multiple jobs
> >
> > We also don't accept -1 for pg_dump:
> >
> > -> pg_dump -j -1
> > pg_dump: invalid number of parallel jobs
> >
> > If I'm missing something, please let me know, otherwise I'll plan to put
> > the same check into pg_restore which exists in pg_dump.
>=20
> Both the code blocks were added by 9e257a18, but I don't see any
> description of why they are different in pg_dump.c and pg_restore.c.
> In fact per comments in pg_restore.c, that condition should be same as
> pg_dump.c. I am not sure whether it's just for windows specific
> condition or the whole block. But I don't see any reason not to
> replicate the same conditions in pg_restore.c

Ok, I've pushed the change.

Thanks!

Stephen

--/GLpYSe53BI9iu8K
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=09iz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/GLpYSe53BI9iu8K--