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

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
Cc: Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
Date: 2026-01-04 23:25:35
Message-ID: CAApHDvqG7_ctYrdhLv+v5W9561kyHsEv7GZrgHGCmVux9KK7+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 at 05:32, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)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?

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-01-04 23:32:14 Re: Typos in the code and README
Previous Message David Rowley 2026-01-04 23:08:56 Re: Checking join outer relation uniqueness to prevent unnecessary memoization