Thread: pg_restore -F bug
This patch fixes a bug in the error message emitted by pg_restore on an incorrect -F argument: write_msg() expects its first parameter to be a "module name", not the format string. Patch applied to HEAD. Is this worth backporting? BTW, is there a reason that pg_restore seems to accept 'f', 't', or 'c' parameters to this argument, but the documentation only documents 't' and 'c'? -Neil Index: src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c =================================================================== RCS file: /var/lib/cvs/pgsql/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c,v retrieving revision 1.69 diff -c -r1.69 pg_restore.c *** src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c 22 Feb 2005 04:39:38 -0000 1.69 --- src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c 29 Apr 2005 06:46:34 -0000 *************** *** 313,319 **** break; default: ! write_msg("unrecognized archive format '%s'; please specify 't' or 'c'\n", opts->formatName); exit(1); } --- 313,319 ---- break; default: ! write_msg(NULL, "unrecognized archive format '%s'; please specify 't' or 'c'\n", opts->formatName); exit(1); }
Neil Conway wrote: > This patch fixes a bug in the error message emitted by pg_restore on an > incorrect -F argument: write_msg() expects its first parameter to be a > "module name", not the format string. Patch applied to HEAD. Is this > worth backporting? > > BTW, is there a reason that pg_restore seems to accept 'f', 't', or 'c' > parameters to this argument, but the documentation only documents 't' > and 'c'? I didn't think pg_restore could use a text file, and I think it emits an error if you try. Maybe they accept the flag so they can throw a meaningful error later. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes: > This patch fixes a bug in the error message emitted by pg_restore on an > incorrect -F argument: write_msg() expects its first parameter to be a > "module name", not the format string. Patch applied to HEAD. Is this > worth backporting? Certainly --- particularly if the error makes it dump core, as seems likely (haven't tried it). > BTW, is there a reason that pg_restore seems to accept 'f', 't', or 'c' > parameters to this argument, but the documentation only documents 't' > and 'c'? I think the 'f' option is only intended for debugging purposes ... Philip would know ... regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Certainly --- particularly if the error makes it dump core, as seems > likely (haven't tried it). Ok, backpatched to stable branches back to 7.2 -Neil