Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: bad examples in pg_dump README

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bad examples in pg_dump README
Date: 2013-01-17 04:52:31
Message-ID: 1358398351.21499.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 19:55 -0700, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 15:34 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > I propose slimming down the pg_dump README, keeping intact the
> >> > introductory notes and details of the tar format.
> >>
> >> Do we need to keep it at all, really? Certainly the introductory part
> >> is covered in the main documentation already...
> >
> > I'd remove it and distribute the remaining information, if any, between
> > the source code and the man page.
> 
> Here's a patch to do so. After removing the discussed bogus
> information, there were only two notes which I still found relevant,
> so I stuck those in the appropriate header comments.

Committed.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2013-01-17 05:01:26
Subject: Re: CF3+4
Previous:From: Abhijit Menon-SenDate: 2013-01-17 04:48:59
Subject: Re: CF3+4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group