| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid too prominent use of "backup" on pg_dump man page |
| Date: | 2024-07-31 06:14:28 |
| Message-ID: | 6ac73ca9-9559-4df5-81c7-ebad848fd6d5@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 31.05.24 10:24, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-05-30 at 08:21 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> No objections to using export over backup, but it does make the use of
>> "restore" feel awkward as that's generally an operation on a backup and not an
>> export.
>>
>> - least one schema/table in the backup file.
>> + least one schema/table in the file to be restored.
>>
>> Would it make sense to use "import" in some cases instead?
>
> What about calling it "dump file" instead of "file to be restored"?
I forgot about this one for a bit. I committed it now as I had proposed
it. The pg_restore man page consistently talks about "restoring" a
file, so this change makes that more consistent. Introducing another
verb would require more changes to properly introduce and explain it,
which seems out of scope for this particular patch.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Doc comments form | 2024-08-01 12:17:15 | add 'from the command line' to tutorial-createdb.html |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-07-31 05:22:30 | Re: incorrect (incomplete) description for "alter domain" |