Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability
Date: 2016-11-29 04:30:47
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSS=z35w9BHbOKGszZYFkoUJWRAY_4ynbBWc=ud+Hrh3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Meh. I forgot docs and --help output updates.
>>
>> Looks good, except that you left the "N" option in the getopt_long
>> call for pg_dumpall. I fixed that in the attached patch.
>
> No, v5 has removed it, but it does not matter much now...
>
>> I'll mark the patch "ready for committer".
>
> Thanks!

Moved to CF 2017-01.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-11-29 04:31:51 Re: WAL consistency check facility
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-11-29 04:29:26 Re: Re: [sqlsmith] FailedAssertion("!(XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackup)", File: "xlog.c", Line: 10200)