Re: pg_dump --no-comments confusion

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump --no-comments confusion
Date: 2024-11-18 22:14:53
Message-ID: 3495698.1731968093@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> writes:
> But it would be good to have this patch applied to all supported versions,
> as soon as nothing was changed on that pg_dump option, no ?

Even more to the point, should we change pg_dump's help output?

...
--load-via-partition-root load partitions via the root table
--no-comments do not dump comments
--no-publications do not dump publications
...

Also, the identical text appears in pg_dumpall's man page and help
output, while pg_restore has a differently worded version:

printf(_(" --no-comments do not restore comments\n"));

pg_restore's man page seems OK though:

Do not output commands to restore comments, even if the archive
contains them.

Note: I would not argue for back-patching changes in the help output,
as that creates translation issues. So probably back-patching the
SGML changes isn't appropriate either. But we should make all of this
consistent in master.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-11-18 22:56:19 UNION versus collations
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2024-11-18 22:07:44 Re: pg_dump --no-comments confusion