Re: Documentation clarification request: pg_dumpall and Large Objects

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Radoulov, Dimitre" <cichomitiko(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Documentation clarification request: pg_dumpall and Large Objects
Date: 2026-03-29 18:12:17
Message-ID: 1effabbdcd3dde945dc4b559224ea282fcf62e7b.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Sun, 2026-03-29 at 13:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> > Commit 763aaa06f0 has changed the situation: with the addition of other formats
> > than the plain format, it no longer makes sense to say that pg_dumpall
> > is not useful for backup. Still, we should clarify what is *not* included.
>
> > The attached patch does that and in passing improves the readability.
>
> Pushed with trivial grammatical adjustments. I also failed to resist
> the temptation to improve the newly-added text nearby.

Thank you,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-03-29 19:32:38 Re: Correct docs about GiST leaf page structure
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-03-29 17:55:11 Re: Documentation clarification request: pg_dumpall and Large Objects