RE: proposal: pg_restore --convert-to-text

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:20 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> Em seg, 18 de fev de 2019 às 19:21, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:
> >
> > Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> writes:
> > > Since no one has stepped up, I took a stab at it. It will prohibit
> > > standard output unless '-f -' be specified. -l option also has the
> > > same restriction.
> >
> > Hm, don't really see the need to break -l usage here.
> >
> After thinking about it, revert it.
>
> > Pls add to next CF, if you didn't already.
> >
> Done.

I saw the patch.

Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should specify either -d or -f option?
(and also it might be better to write if -l option is given, neither -d nor -f option isn't necessarily needed.)

I also have the simple question in the code.

I thought the below if-else condition

+ if (filename && strcmp(filename, "-") == 0)
+ fn = fileno(stdout);
+ else if (filename)
fn = -1;
else if (AH->FH)

can also be written by the form below.

if (filename)
{
if(strcmp(filename, "-") == 0)
fn = fileno(stdout);
else
fn = -1;
}
else if (AH->FH)

I think the former one looks like pretty, but which one is preffered?

--
Yoshikazu Imai