On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Do we need to keep it at all, really? Certainly the introductory part
> is covered in the main documentation already...
Pretty much. (I did find note #2 mildly interesting.)
> I believe the tar notes are also out of date. For example, they claim
> that you can't expect pg_restore to work with an uncompressed tar
> format - yet the header in pg_backup_tar.c says that an uncompressed
> tar format is compatible with a directory format dump, and thus you
> *can* use pg_restore.
> (And fwiw,the note about the user should probably go in src/port/ now
> that we moved the tar header creation there a few days ago)
Hrm yeah, so the second paragraph under the tar section can certainly be axed.
> I would suggest we just drop the README file completely. I don't think
> it adds any value at all.
> Any objections to that path? :)
I think that's OK, since there's not much left in that README after
removing the bogus examples, introductory text that's covered
elsewhere, and obsolete second paragraph about the tar format. Perhaps
we could keep the other paragraphs about the tar format, either in the
header comments for pg_backup_tar.c or in src/port/, though?
Oh, and for this comment in pg_backup_tar.c:
| * See the headers to pg_backup_files & pg_restore for more
there is no longer a pg_backup_files.c.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Phil Sorber||Date: 2013-01-05 18:34:02|
|Subject: Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2013-01-05 18:06:57|
|Subject: Re: enhanced error fields|