From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
Date: | 2025-09-25 21:46:48 |
Message-ID: | CAB-JLwaVjXzYJxZVbEQuOjNRYz+1XLE-V5oZsT0DAqNJQgUbXw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em qui., 25 de set. de 2025 às 18:31, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
escreveu:
> This pattern is used because you can pass more than one argument, for
> example, something like
I know that
>
> While I agree that the wording is a little awkward, this follows the same
> pattern as pg_dump and friends.
>
well, I think pg_dump looks wrong too. Because if you explain that it's a
single table or single schema on docs, why you write on plural on usage ?
+ Repack or analyze all tables in
+ <replaceable class="parameter">schema</replaceable> only. Multiple
+ schemas can be repacked by writing multiple <option>-n</option>
+ switches.
instead of
+ printf(_(" -n, --schema=SCHEMA repack tables in the
specified schema(s) only\n"));
maybe this ?
+ printf(_(" -n, --schema=SCHEMA repack tables in the
specified schema, can be used several times\n"));
regards
Marcos
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-09-25 21:50:38 | Re: Remove unused parameter on check_and_push_window_quals |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2025-09-25 21:31:35 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |