Thread: pg_dump incorrect output in plaintext mode
$ pg_dump -v postgres -Fc -t t > /dev/null ... pg_dump: dumping contents of table t ... but in plaintext: $ pg_dump -v postgres -Fp -t t > /dev/null pg_dump: creating TABLE t pg_dump: restoring data for table "t" pg_dump: dumping contents of table t pg_dump: setting owner and privileges for TABLE t pg_dump: setting owner and privileges for TABLE DATA t In particular, the "restoring data" is obviously completely wrong. But AFAICT, the "creating table" and "setting owner" etc are also wrong... This is because pg_dump calls RestoreArchive(fout). Do we need to pass down a parameter all the way down the functions to tell them if they're restoring or not? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar ago 28 08:08:24 -0400 2012: > In particular, the "restoring data" is obviously completely wrong. But > AFAICT, the "creating table" and "setting owner" etc are also wrong... > > This is because pg_dump calls RestoreArchive(fout). > > Do we need to pass down a parameter all the way down the functions to > tell them if they're restoring or not? Hmm, but the info is already there, is it not? Isn't AH->ropt->useDB what you want? As a translator, I'm not sure that I'm too happy with the idea of having to translate double the number of strings in pg_dump ... -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> but in plaintext:
> $ pg_dump -v postgres -Fp -t t > /dev/null
> pg_dump: creating TABLE t
> pg_dump: restoring data for table "t"
> pg_dump: dumping contents of table t
> pg_dump: setting owner and privileges for TABLE t
> pg_dump: setting owner and privileges for TABLE DATA t
I don't see anything particularly incorrect about that. The point of
the --verbose switch is to track what pg_dump is doing, and if what
it's doing involves going through RestoreArchive(), why should we try
to hide the fact?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> but in plaintext: >> $ pg_dump -v postgres -Fp -t t > /dev/null >> pg_dump: creating TABLE t >> pg_dump: restoring data for table "t" >> pg_dump: dumping contents of table t >> pg_dump: setting owner and privileges for TABLE t >> pg_dump: setting owner and privileges for TABLE DATA t > > I don't see anything particularly incorrect about that. The point of > the --verbose switch is to track what pg_dump is doing, and if what > it's doing involves going through RestoreArchive(), why should we try > to hide the fact? "restoring data for table 't'" makes you think it's actuall restoring things. It's not. That dumping is implemented by calling an internal function called RestoreArchive() has to be an implementation detail... It certainly confuses users that we say "restoring" when we're not doing that... -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't see anything particularly incorrect about that. The point of
>> the --verbose switch is to track what pg_dump is doing, and if what
>> it's doing involves going through RestoreArchive(), why should we try
>> to hide the fact?
> "restoring data for table 't'" makes you think it's actuall restoring
> things. It's not. That dumping is implemented by calling an internal
> function called RestoreArchive() has to be an implementation detail...
> It certainly confuses users that we say "restoring" when we're not
> doing that...
Well, why don't we just s/restoring/processing/ in the debug message,
and call it good?
regards, tom lane
<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Aug 28, 2012 9:59 PM, "Tom Lane" <<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > Magnus Hagander <<a href="mailto:magnus@hagander.net">magnus@hagander.net</a>>writes:<br /> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM, TomLane <<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>> wrote:<br /> > >> I don't see anythingparticularly incorrect about that. The point of<br /> > >> the --verbose switch is to track what pg_dumpis doing, and if what<br /> > >> it's doing involves going through RestoreArchive(), why should we try<br/> > >> to hide the fact?<br /> ><br /> > > "restoring data for table 't'" makes you think it's actuallrestoring<br /> > > things. It's not. That dumping is implemented by calling an internal<br /> > > functioncalled RestoreArchive() has to be an implementation detail...<br /> > > It certainly confuses users that wesay "restoring" when we're not<br /> > > doing that...<br /> ><br /> > Well, why don't we just s/restoring/processing/in the debug message,<br /> > and call it good?<p dir="ltr">Sure, that would work for me... I cango do that if there are no objections.<br /><p dir="ltr">/Magnus
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2012 9:59 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> I don't see anything particularly incorrect about that. The point of >> >> the --verbose switch is to track what pg_dump is doing, and if what >> >> it's doing involves going through RestoreArchive(), why should we try >> >> to hide the fact? >> >> > "restoring data for table 't'" makes you think it's actuall restoring >> > things. It's not. That dumping is implemented by calling an internal >> > function called RestoreArchive() has to be an implementation detail... >> > It certainly confuses users that we say "restoring" when we're not >> > doing that... >> >> Well, why don't we just s/restoring/processing/ in the debug message, >> and call it good? > > Sure, that would work for me... I can go do that if there are no objections. Done. Are we "allowed" to backpatch things to 9.2 at this point that changes strings for translators? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> On Aug 28, 2012 9:59 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> Well, why don't we just s/restoring/processing/ in the debug message, >>>> and call it good? > >> Are we "allowed" to backpatch things to 9.2 at this point that changes >> strings for translators? > > Well, not being a translator I'm not sure that I get a vote. > But I'd think this is too minor to justify back-patching it. Probably - that's why I didn't even consider going back beyond 9.2. Anyway; I'll just leave it at master. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Aug 28, 2012 9:59 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Well, why don't we just s/restoring/processing/ in the debug message,
>>> and call it good?
> Are we "allowed" to backpatch things to 9.2 at this point that changes
> strings for translators?
Well, not being a translator I'm not sure that I get a vote.
But I'd think this is too minor to justify back-patching it.
regards, tom lane