Rewriting backup.sgml (patch attached)

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Rewriting backup.sgml (patch attached)
Date: 2015-05-19 21:30:42
Message-ID: 555BAB82.3080803@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

Alright, per previous discussions I went through the backup.sgml page. I
have gone thoroughly through:

sql dump
pg_dump
pg_restore
handling large databases

I removed file based backups

I didn't really touch the red headed step child that is pg_dumpall
(although a word smithed it a little).

I tried to remove some of the conversationalist tone. This is technical
documentation not a story. I also removed as many extra words as
reasonable and added specific examples.

Now, I know some of you will say things like... why did you add -C to
the pg_dump line. The reason is simple, without it as new person is
going to get an error on restore. Our documentation should be explicit
not implicit.

I do not want to progress any farther on this until I get some feedback.

Sincerely,

JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.

Attachment Content-Type Size
backup.sgml.patch text/x-patch 31.3 KB

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2015-05-19 21:31:32 Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2015-05-19 21:28:52 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE with _any_ constraint