Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
| От | Florents Tselai |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+v5N42vcqdCT+yr2CnjjKYoD0aGaJ_ipARSvPitj_U=P0Twqg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ? (Florents Tselai <florents.tselai@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 8:34 PM Florents Tselai <florents.tselai@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m in the process of trying to restore some PG15/16 backups in PG17.While playing with different -t and -n combinations I was browsing through the docs.In pg_restore there are two notes about both -t / -n> When -n / -t is specified, pg_dump makes no attempt to ...In pg_dump though there’s the equivalent note only for the -t option.Shouldn’t it be a note as well for -n ?Otherwise I would expect -n to cascade the restore to objects in other schemas;Which I don’t think it does.Am I missing something?
Ah, swapped them by mistake on the previous email:
They're both available in the pg_dump and note on -n missing in pg_restore.
The question remains though:
Shouldn’t there be a note about -n in pg_restore ?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: