Re: Addition of pg_dump --no-publications

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Addition of pg_dump --no-publications
Date: 2017-05-12 14:24:12
Message-ID: 18294.1494599052@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> While it's consistent with surrounding code, I find the use of ints to
> express what is in essence a boolean condition puzzling. Any
> insights?

IIRC, it's forced by the getopt_long API, particularly the way that
the long-options struct has to be declared.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neha Khatri 2017-05-12 14:27:14 Re: If subscription to foreign table valid ?
Previous Message Neha Khatri 2017-05-12 14:22:01 Re: Time based lag tracking for logical replication