Re: Pg_dumpall

2018-04-08 Thread Jonathan S. Katz
Hi,

> On Apr 7, 2018, at 10:55 AM, PG Doc comments form  
> wrote:
> 
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> 
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/backup-dump.html
> Description:
> 
> "The basic usage of this command is:
> 
> pg_dumpall > outfile
> The resulting dump can be restored with psql:
> 
> psql -f infile postgres
> (Actually, you can specify any existing database name to..."
> 
> Should this not read :
> psql-f outfile postgres

Technically it is correct: you’re dumping data to an output file,
and reading the data in from an input file.  The documentation
also makes reference to what the “outfile” and “infile” represent.

That being said, I can see how it can be confusing particularly
if you are reading through the documentation quickly.  Perhaps
a name like “dumpfile” would be more clear?

Jonathan




Re: Pg_dumpall

2018-04-08 Thread Tom Lane
"Jonathan S. Katz"  writes:
>> On Apr 7, 2018, at 10:55 AM, PG Doc comments form  
>> wrote:
>> Should this not read :
>> psql-f outfile postgres

> Technically it is correct: you’re dumping data to an output file,
> and reading the data in from an input file.  The documentation
> also makes reference to what the “outfile” and “infile” represent.

> That being said, I can see how it can be confusing particularly
> if you are reading through the documentation quickly.  Perhaps
> a name like “dumpfile” would be more clear?

+1 ... I thought the same.  Will go fix it.

regards, tom lane