| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT |
| Date: | 2019-03-04 15:46:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20190304154625.GA495@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Mar-02, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Although I'm all in favor of checking the int associated to the option, I do
> not think that it warrants three checks and messages. I would suggest to
> factor them all as just one check and one (terse) message.
I suggest ("rows-per-insert must be in range 1..%d", INT_MAX), like
extra_float_digits and compression level.
> About the output: I'd suggest to indent one line per row, something like:
>
> INSERT INTO foo VALUES
> (..., ..., ..., ...),
> (..., ..., ..., ...),
> (..., ..., ..., ...);
+1.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-03-04 15:53:25 | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2019-03-04 14:58:58 | Re: insensitive collations |