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

Re: pg_dump new -n flag

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump new -n flag
Date: 1998-10-04 22:58:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Did you update the man pages or docs?  I don't see the man page 
> changed. Do you want me to do it?

Funny you should ask...

I'm just in the process of converting all of the "utilities" man pages
to sgml. For this release, we should keep the man pages as-is, but we
will have equivalent info in hardcopy and html.

So, I haven't updated the man page yet, but I'll do that. I did update
the usage printout from pg_dump itself.

And, can we be sure to update both sgml and man pages from here to
release to keep them in sync? I should be able to commit most sgml
sources for the utilities this evening; on my list of "must-haves" just
pg_dump, pg_dumpall, and vacuum are left to do.

btw, is "-n" an acceptable choice for the flag? I'd be happy with
anything, but decided that "-q" probably shouldn't be used since many
programs use it to mean "quiet". So -n for "No quotes" is what I chose

                     - Tom


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 1998-10-04 23:52:38
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 1998-10-04 22:24:16
Subject: TCL_ARRAYS code in libpgtcl is pretty seriously broken

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group