RE: proposal: pg_restore --convert-to-text
Imai, Yoshikazu <imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com>
From: "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: 'Euler Taveira' <euler@timbira.com.br>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>, "Andrew Gierth" <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-03-18T00:21:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:55 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > > Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should > specify either -d or -f option? > > (and also it might be better to write if -l option is given, neither > > -d nor -f option isn't necessarily needed.) > > > I don't think so. The description is already there (see "pg_restore can > operate in two modes..."). I left -l as is which means that 'pg_restore > -l foo.dump' dumps to standard output and 'pg_restore -f - -l foo.dump' > has the same behavior). Ah, I understand it. > > I think the former one looks like pretty, but which one is preffered? > > > I don't have a style preference but decided to change to your suggestion. > New version attached. I checked it. It may be a trivial matter, so thanks for taking it consideration. -- Yoshikazu Imai
Commits
-
pg_restore: Require "-f -" to mean stdout
- 413ccaa74d9a 12.0 landed