On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2012 9:59 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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.
Done. Are we "allowed" to backpatch things to 9.2 at this point that changes strings for translators? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
