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

On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 1:25 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 at 05:32, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-Sep-26, Florents Tselai wrote:
> > > but the -e note on the distinction between installing binaries /
> creating
> > > an extension I think it's important.
> >
> > Hmm, ok, but I think that's a slightly unrelated topic because the shlib
> > is not a database object.  Maybe it would be more appropriate to add a
> > mention of this directly in the docs for -e instead of trying to cram it
> > in the note about other database objects.  I'll wait for you to propose
> > something for that part.
>
> This seems to be waiting on Florents. I've adjusted the CF entry to
> reflect that.
>
> Florents, are you planning on coming back to this?
>

Thanks for pushing.

I consolidated the dependency warnings into the main "Notes" section for
both pg_dump and pg_restore, removing the repetitive per-switch notes.

 For the -e switch in pg_dump, I replaced the removed dependency note
with a specific warning that extension installation files (shared libs,
control files) are not included.
 I agree that maintaining a specific note for -e is the right move.
Given the broad usage of pg_dump, it is helpful to be explicit that the
dump only captures the SQL definitions and not the underlying system
binaries.