Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 15:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Would -1 work, or just
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 20:03 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Changes as discussed. singletransaction.patch attached.
I meant to ask, why is this
On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 20:03 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Changes as discussed. singletransaction.patch attached.
I meant to ask, why is this not the default or only behavior?
Historically, it didn't work that way, so I hadn't thought to change
that behaviour. We could
Tom Lane wrote:
I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for
having this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.
I once considered
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 14:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 20:03 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I meant to ask, why is this not the default or only behavior?
Historically, it didn't work that way, so I hadn't thought to change
that
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 21:51 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for
having this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
Just
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I once considered implementing this myself but found it infeasible for
some reason I don't remember. Nevertheless I always thought that
having an atomic restore ought to be a non-optional feature. Are there
situations where one would not want to
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 15:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Would -1 work, or just confuse people?
That was my preference, I just thought it wouldn't be popular...
So I'll happily change that.
OK. While
Simon Riggs wrote:
Changes as discussed. singletransaction.patch attached.
I meant to ask, why is this not the default or only behavior? Your
patch does not contain a documentation update, and so the user has no
information about why to use this option or not.
--
Peter Eisentraut
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patches add a -N option to psql and pgrestore.
-N seems an entirely random name for the switch ... can't we do better?
I see that -t, -T, -s, -S, -x and -X are all taken, which lets out the
obvious choices ... but I'd rather have no
Simon Riggs wrote:
The following patches add a -N option to psql and pgrestore.
This option adds a BEGIN at the start and a COMMIT at the end of all
commands, causing all statements to be executed as a single transaction.
Why use it around the whole file and not only around that particular
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patches add a -N option to psql and pgrestore.
-N seems an entirely random name for the switch ... can't we do better?
I see that -t, -T, -s, -S, -x and -X are all taken, which lets out
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 16:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
The following patches add a -N option to psql and pgrestore.
This option adds a BEGIN at the start and a COMMIT at the end of all
commands, causing all statements to be executed as a single transaction.
Why
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Would -1 work, or just confuse people?
That was my preference, I just thought it wouldn't be popular...
So I'll happily change that.
OK. While you're at it, I didn't like the long name either ;-).
We do
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 16:04 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
The following patches add a -N option to psql and pgrestore.
This option adds a BEGIN at the start and a COMMIT at the end of all
commands, causing all statements to be executed as a
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why use it around the whole file and not only around that particular
table's operations?
You could. That just behaves slightly differently.
pg_dump does not always produce all the commands affecting a single
table together, so I don't think you can
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why use it around the whole file and not only around that particular
table's operations?
You could. That just behaves slightly differently.
pg_dump does not always produce all the commands affecting a single
table together, so I
17 matches
Mail list logo
