Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation

Started by Tatsuro Yamada3 months ago5 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Tatsuro Yamada
tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp

Hi,

While reading the pg_dump and pg_restore documentation, I noticed
that the terminology for the -j/--jobs option is inconsistent.

## pg_dump [1]https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgdump.html
-j njobs
--jobs=njobs

## pg_restore [2]https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgrestore.html
-j number-of-jobs
--jobs=number-of-jobs

For the sake of consistency, I think it would be better to revise the
terminology as follows:

s/number-of-jobs/njobs/

To double-check, I also looked at the documentation for vacuumdb,
reindexdb, and pg_upgrade, and all of them use "njobs".

Please find the attached patch.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgdump.html
[2]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/app-pgrestore.html

Regards,
Tatsuro Yamada

Attachments:

0001-Revised-terminology-for-consistency.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=0001-Revised-terminology-for-consistency.patchDownload+3-4
#2Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz
In reply to: Tatsuro Yamada (#1)
Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation

On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 11:48:21AM +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:

To double-check, I also looked at the documentation for vacuumdb,
reindexdb, and pg_upgrade, and all of them use "njobs".

As far as I can see:
$ cd doc && git grep "number-of-jobs" | wc -l
3
$ cd doc && git grep "njobs" | wc -l
14

While it is minor, I agree that we could just make things consistent
across the board as you are suggesting, so LGTM.
--
Michael

#3Tatsuro Yamada
tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp
In reply to: Michael Paquier (#2)
Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation

Hi Michael-san,

On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 1:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 11:48:21AM +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:

To double-check, I also looked at the documentation for vacuumdb,
reindexdb, and pg_upgrade, and all of them use "njobs".

As far as I can see:
$ cd doc && git grep "number-of-jobs" | wc -l
3
$ cd doc && git grep "njobs" | wc -l
14

While it is minor, I agree that we could just make things consistent
across the board as you are suggesting, so LGTM.

Thanks!
Yeah, it's minor but there is a quote that says God is in the details.

Regards,
Tatsuro Yamada

#4Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz
In reply to: Tatsuro Yamada (#3)
Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 01:01:33PM +0900, Tatsuro Yamada wrote:

Yeah, it's minor but there is a quote that says God is in the details.

At some degree, yes, see 540c39cc56f5.
--
Michael

#5Tatsuro Yamada
tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp
In reply to: Michael Paquier (#4)
Re: Inconsistent terminology for -j/--jobs option in documentation

Hi Michael-san,

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 3:27 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

At some degree, yes, see 540c39cc56f5.

Thank you for committing the patch!

Regards,
Tatsuro Yamada