Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The name of this new option is a bit of a mouthful, and it mixes in > an otherwise standardized term (deferrable, as in constraints) with > transaction isolation. Wouldn't something like > --wait-for-serializable be clearer (and shorter)? I see it's not mentioned in the description of the pg_dump option, but the option name is based on the new (PostgreSQL-specific) DEFERRABLE transaction property which is used when the option is specified. See if it makes more sense after reading this page: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-set-transaction.html Personally, I think DEFERRABLE is a good name for the transaction property; it conveys the right semantics and avoids adding a new reserved word. The question of what to name it was first raised almost eight months ago, and it has been discussed many times since. http://search.postgresql.org/search?q=kevin+serializable+deferrable&m=1&l=1&d=365&s=d I'm less concerned about the pg_dump name, if you think something else is clearer; although this one isn't the longest pg_dump option we have. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
