Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So you suggest that it should be
>
> pg_restore: error: one of -d/--dbname, -f/--file and -l/--list must be
> specified
> ?
I'd suggest this minimal fix :
(int argc, char **argv)
/* Complain if neither -f nor -d was specified (except if dumping
TOC) */
On 2019-Jun-12, Daniel Verite wrote:
> While testing pg_restore on v12, I'm stumbling on this too.
Thanks for testing.
> pg_restore without argument fails like that:
>
> $ pg_restore
> pg_restore: error: one of -d/--dbname and -f/--file must be specified
>
> But that's not right since
> "Daniel" == Daniel Verite writes:
Daniel> While testing pg_restore on v12, I'm stumbling on this too.
Daniel> pg_restore without argument fails like that:
Daniel> $ pg_restore
Daniel> pg_restore: error: one of -d/--dbname and -f/--file must be specified
Yeah, that's not good.
How
José Arthur Benetasso Villanova wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
>
> > Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should
> > specify either -d or -f option?
> > (and also it might be better to write if -l option is given, neither -d nor
> >
I just pushed it with trivial changes:
* rebased for cc8d41511721
* changed wording in the error message
* added a new test for the condition in t/001_basic.pl
* Added the "-" in the --help line of -f.
Andrew G. never confirmed that this change is sufficient to appease
users being confused
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:20 AM, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> Upon committing this, we have to care this patch break backwards
> compatibility, but I haven't seen any complaints so far. If there are
> no objections, I will set this patch to ready for committer.
Jose had set this to ready for
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:55 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should
> specify either -d or -f option?
> > (and also it might be better to write if -l option is given, neither
> > -d nor -f option isn't necessarily needed.)
> >
> I
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Euler Taveira wrote:
I think the former one looks like pretty, but which one is preffered?
I don't have a style preference but decided to change to your
suggestion. New version attached.
Again, the patch compiles and works as expected.
--
José Arthur Benetasso
Em qua, 27 de fev de 2019 às 23:48, Imai, Yoshikazu
escreveu:
>
> Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should
> specify either -d or -f option?
> (and also it might be better to write if -l option is given, neither -d nor
> -f option isn't necessarily needed.)
>
I
Hi Jose,
Sorry for my late reply.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:58 AM, José Arthur Benetasso Villanova wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
>
> > Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should
> specify either -d or -f option?
> > (and also it might be
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
Is there no need to rewrite the Description in the Doc to state we should
specify either -d or -f option?
(and also it might be better to write if -l option is given, neither -d nor -f
option isn't necessarily needed.)
Since the default part of
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:20 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> Em seg, 18 de fev de 2019 às 19:21, Tom Lane escreveu:
> >
> > Euler Taveira writes:
> > > Since no one has stepped up, I took a stab at it. It will prohibit
> > > standard output unless '-f -' be specified. -l option also has the
> >
Em seg, 18 de fev de 2019 às 19:21, Tom Lane escreveu:
>
> Euler Taveira writes:
> > Since no one has stepped up, I took a stab at it. It will prohibit
> > standard output unless '-f -' be specified. -l option also has the
> > same restriction.
>
> Hm, don't really see the need to break -l usage
Euler Taveira writes:
> Since no one has stepped up, I took a stab at it. It will prohibit
> standard output unless '-f -' be specified. -l option also has the
> same restriction.
Hm, don't really see the need to break -l usage here.
Pls add to next CF, if you didn't already.
Em qui, 14 de fev de 2019 às 22:41, Andreas Karlsson
escreveu:
> Agreed, "-f -" would be acceptable. I use pg_restore to stdout a lot,
> but almost always manually and would have to have to remember and type
> "--convert-to-text".
>
Since no one has stepped up, I took a stab at it. It will
On 14/02/2019 01.31, Euler Taveira wrote:
Em qua, 13 de fev de 2019 às 19:56, Andrew Gierth
escreveu:
I propose we add a new option: --convert-to-text or some such name, and
then make pg_restore throw a usage error if neither -d nor the new
option is given.
However, I agree that pg_restore
Euler Taveira writes:
> Em qua, 13 de fev de 2019 às 19:56, Andrew Gierth
> escreveu:
>> I propose we add a new option: --convert-to-text or some such name, and
>> then make pg_restore throw a usage error if neither -d nor the new
>> option is given.
> However, I agree that pg_restore to stdout
Em qua, 13 de fev de 2019 às 19:56, Andrew Gierth
escreveu:
> One of the remarkably common user errors with pg_restore is users
> leaving off the -d option. (We get cases of it regularly on the IRC
> channel, including one just now which prompted me to finally propose
> this)
>
I'm not sure it is
One of the remarkably common user errors with pg_restore is users
leaving off the -d option. (We get cases of it regularly on the IRC
channel, including one just now which prompted me to finally propose
this)
I propose we add a new option: --convert-to-text or some such name, and
then make
19 matches
Mail list logo
