From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump incorrect output in plaintext mode |
Date: | 2012-08-31 12:05:16 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEx7NAnarCANhj=fwLsdSpLvh4_txtvcYUJ1P7gc164Q1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 28, 2012 9:59 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I don't see anything particularly incorrect about that. The point of
> >> the --verbose switch is to track what pg_dump is doing, and if what
> >> it's doing involves going through RestoreArchive(), why should we try
> >> to hide the fact?
>
> > "restoring data for table 't'" makes you think it's actuall restoring
> > things. It's not. That dumping is implemented by calling an internal
> > function called RestoreArchive() has to be an implementation detail...
> > It certainly confuses users that we say "restoring" when we're not
> > doing that...
>
> Well, why don't we just s/restoring/processing/ in the debug message,
> and call it good?
Sure, that would work for me... I can go do that if there are no objections.
/Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-08-31 12:10:46 | Re: patch: shared session variables |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-08-31 10:05:48 | Re: Event Triggers reduced, v1 |