Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Florents Tselai
Subject Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
Date
Msg-id CA+v5N42vcqdCT+yr2CnjjKYoD0aGaJ_ipARSvPitj_U=P0Twqg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?  (Florents Tselai <florents.tselai@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view




On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 8:34 PM Florents Tselai <florents.tselai@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m in the process of trying to restore some PG15/16 backups in PG17.

While playing with different -t and -n combinations I was browsing through the docs.

In pg_restore there are two notes about both -t / -n 

> When -n / -t is specified, pg_dump makes no attempt to ...

In pg_dump though there’s the equivalent note only for the -t option.

Shouldn’t it be a note as well for -n ? 

Otherwise I would expect -n to cascade the restore to objects in other schemas;
Which I don’t think it does.

Am I missing something? 

Ah,  swapped them by mistake on the previous email: 

They're both available in the pg_dump and note on -n missing in pg_restore. 

The question remains though: 
Shouldn’t there be a note about -n in pg_restore ?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Florents Tselai
Date:
Subject: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?