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

> On 21 Sep 2024, at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> 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.

Agree with that, but I think there should be a pointer like “see Notes” .
Otherwise I’m pretty sure most would expect pg doing magic.
Can’t remember I scrolledl to the bottom of a page “notes” after finding the option I want.

I would also add an example of what “depend upon” means,
To underline that it’s really not that uncommon.
Something like:
“If you pg_dump only with -t A and A has foreign key constraints to table B,
Those constraints won’t succeed If B has not been already restored”

>
> and mutatis mutandis for pg_restore.
>
> regards, tom lane