| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Allan Engelhardt <allane(at)cybaea(dot)com>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [repost] pg_restore doesn't work with custom format? |
| Date: | 2001-10-23 22:18:30 |
| Message-ID: | 15591.1003875510@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. Target database is named by -d switch, else default to dbname
>> from dump file.
After further looking at this, I've decided that the existing behavior
of pg_dump and pg_restore is actually reasonable, it's just poorly
documented. Accordingly, I fixed the documents.
The only code change I applied was to disallow the combination of
--create and --clean options. This combination doesn't have any
practical use (if you're going to create a fresh database, what's
the point of issuing DROP commands for the individual items?),
and it isn't implemented correctly (the DROPs are applied to the
wrong database). I don't see any point in trying to make it work
sensibly, since it has no value anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Felipe Nascimento | 2001-10-24 11:56:57 | Re: [repost] pg_restore doesn't work with custom format? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-23 19:34:34 | Re: RedHat logging |