Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > You are assuming it is easy to find what is on a specific line of the
> > dump file. I am not sure that is always easy for people with limited
> > Unix skills, or MSWin folks. I am not sure I would have thought to add
> > the file offset to find the problem COPY line. I guess I would have
> > eventually, but it wouldn't have been my first idea, and I might _not_
> > have used -f on the load, and if the load took an hour, I would have to
> > run it again to get that line number.
>
> That is all besides the point. If adding -f to the command line is for
> some reason prohibitive, then the same applies to -e. That is all.
I see, both -e give query before error, -f gives line number before
error. I suppose the -e is clearer because you don't have to find the
line in the file, but the -e output makes it more likely they would miss
an error line in the output.
Seems we should recommend -f rather than "<" for restores anyway, right?
Reporting the table with the error is clearer, but this brings up
another case --- what happens with pg_dumpall? Do we print the database
name or will they know the database name from the table name?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073