Re: pg_dump/restore syntax checking bug? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Kupershmidt
Subject Re: pg_dump/restore syntax checking bug?
Date
Msg-id CAK3UJRH6SAvyH47VOxbDtfFkc+XoFnmRTZDK+TRKbC5DOnV+-w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_dump/restore syntax checking bug?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump/restore syntax checking bug?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> postgres@jd-laptop:~$ pg_restore -d test -P 'by(),hello()' foo.sqlc

Note, the pg_restore doc makes no mention of trying to squeeze
multiple function prototypes in a single argument you've done here, or
of using multiple -P flags.

> It appears we need better syntax checking.

Can't really argue with this. But if you think these pg_restore
examples are bad, try this gem: reindexdb --table='foo; ALTER ROLE limited WITH superuser'

Josh



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: pg_dump/restore syntax checking bug?
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums