Thread

1. improve pg_restore warning on text dump input

   Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2012-01-03T18:43:04Z

    From time to time there are complaints because people mistakenly feed a 
   text format dump to pg_restore and get back a somewhat cryptic message 
   about the file not being a valid archive. It's been suggested that we 
   should have pg_restore run the file through psql, but that would involve 
   more work than I at least care to give the problem. However, I think we 
   should give a nicer message, suggesting the user try feeding the file to 
   psql instead. The attached small patch does that.
   
   cheers
   
   andrew
   
   
   

2. Re: improve pg_restore warning on text dump input

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2012-01-03T18:55:29Z

   Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
   >  From time to time there are complaints because people mistakenly feed a 
   > text format dump to pg_restore and get back a somewhat cryptic message 
   > about the file not being a valid archive. It's been suggested that we 
   > should have pg_restore run the file through psql, but that would involve 
   > more work than I at least care to give the problem. However, I think we 
   > should give a nicer message, suggesting the user try feeding the file to 
   > psql instead. The attached small patch does that.
   
   It would probably be better if you put this test before the one that
   insists the file is at least 512 bytes.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

3. Re: improve pg_restore warning on text dump input

   Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2012-01-03T19:09:28Z

   
   On 01/03/2012 01:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
   > Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net>  writes:
   >>    From time to time there are complaints because people mistakenly feed a
   >> text format dump to pg_restore and get back a somewhat cryptic message
   >> about the file not being a valid archive. It's been suggested that we
   >> should have pg_restore run the file through psql, but that would involve
   >> more work than I at least care to give the problem. However, I think we
   >> should give a nicer message, suggesting the user try feeding the file to
   >> psql instead. The attached small patch does that.
   > It would probably be better if you put this test before the one that
   > insists the file is at least 512 bytes.
   >
   > 			
   
   
   Hmm, yeah. I guess we're pretty much certain that these markers can't 
   reasonably appear at the start of a tar archive.
   
   cheers
   
   andrew