Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
Date: 2024-09-21 18:22:49
Message-ID: 2745562.1726942969@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Ah, swapped them by mistake on the previous email:
> They're both available in the pg_dump and note on -n missing in pg_restore.
> The question remains though:
> Shouldn’t there be a note about -n in pg_restore ?

Probably. I see that pg_dump has a third copy of the exact same
note for "-e". pg_restore lacks that switch for some reason,
but this is surely looking mighty duplicative. I propose getting
rid of the per-switch Notes and putting a para into the Notes
section, along the lines of

When -e, -n, or -t is specified, pg_dump makes no attempt to dump
any other database objects that the selected object(s) might
depend upon. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the results of
a selective dump can be successfully restored by themselves into a
clean database.

and mutatis mutandis for pg_restore.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nitin Jadhav 2024-09-21 18:24:58 Re: Extensible storage manager API - SMGR hook Redux
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-09-21 17:44:53 Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree