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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
