Re: Restoring large tables with COPY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Serguei Mokhov
Subject Re: Restoring large tables with COPY
Date
Msg-id 029c01c18272$d7c85e80$5dd9fea9@gunn
Whole thread Raw
In response to Restoring large tables with COPY  (Marko Kreen <marko@l-t.ee>)
Responses Re: Restoring large tables with COPY
List pgsql-hackers
----- Original Message -----
From: Marko Kreen <marko@l-t.ee>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:38 PM

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 12:29:07PM -0500, Serguei Mokhov wrote:
> > If this thing ever gets through, shouldn't this
> >
> > >   /* placeholders for the delimiters for comments */
> > > ***************
> > > *** 151,156 ****
> > > --- 153,159 ----
> > >   "  -h, --host=HOSTNAME      database server host name\n"
> > >   "  -i, --ignore-version     proceed even when server version mismatches\n"
> > >   "                           pg_dump version\n"
> > > + "  ­m, --maxrows=NUM        max rows in one COPY command\n"
> >
> > say '-m'
> >
> > > + "  ­m NUM                   max rows in one COPY command\n"
> >
> > and this one too?
>
> One is for systems that have 'getopt_long', second for
> short-getopt-only ones.  The '-h, --host=HOSTNAME' means
> that '-h HOSTNAME' and '--host=HOSTNAME' are same.

I know, I know. I just was trying to point out a typo :)
You forgot to add '-' in the messages before 'm'.





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump: Sorted output, referential integrity
Next
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: Re: Restoring large tables with COPY