RE: proposal: pg_restore --convert-to-text

From: José Arthur Benetasso Villanova <jose(dot)arthur(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: 'Euler Taveira' <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: proposal: pg_restore --convert-to-text
Date: 2019-03-06 10:58:14
Message-ID: alpine.LFD.2.21.1903060754390.19411@dreamer.home.benetasso.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:

> Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should specify either -d or -f option?
> (and also it might be better to write if -l option is given, neither -d nor -f option isn't necessarily needed.)

Since the default part of text was removed, looks ok to me.

> I also have the simple question in the code.
>
> I thought the below if-else condition
>
> + if (filename && strcmp(filename, "-") == 0)
> + fn = fileno(stdout);
> + else if (filename)
> fn = -1;
> else if (AH->FH)
>
> can also be written by the form below.
>
> if (filename)
> {
> if(strcmp(filename, "-") == 0)
> fn = fileno(stdout);
> else
> fn = -1;
> }
> else if (AH->FH)
>
> I think the former one looks like pretty, but which one is preffered?

Aside the above question, I tested the code against a up-to-date
repository. It compiled, worked as expected and passed all tests.

--
Jose Arthur Benetasso Villanova

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2019-03-06 11:12:10 openLogOff is not needed anymore
Previous Message Sergei Kornilov 2019-03-06 10:42:16 Re: pg_basebackup against older server versions