Thread: Pg_dumpall

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/backup-dump.html
Description:

"The basic usage of this command is:

pg_dumpall > outfile
The resulting dump can be restored with psql:

psql -f infile postgres
(Actually, you can specify any existing database name to..."

Should this not read :
 psql-f outfile postgres

Hi,

> On Apr 7, 2018, at 10:55 AM, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/backup-dump.html
> Description:
>
> "The basic usage of this command is:
>
> pg_dumpall > outfile
> The resulting dump can be restored with psql:
>
> psql -f infile postgres
> (Actually, you can specify any existing database name to..."
>
> Should this not read :
> psql-f outfile postgres

Technically it is correct: you’re dumping data to an output file,
and reading the data in from an input file.  The documentation
also makes reference to what the “outfile” and “infile” represent.

That being said, I can see how it can be confusing particularly
if you are reading through the documentation quickly.  Perhaps
a name like “dumpfile” would be more clear?

Jonathan

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> On Apr 7, 2018, at 10:55 AM, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> Should this not read :
>> psql-f outfile postgres

> Technically it is correct: you’re dumping data to an output file,
> and reading the data in from an input file.  The documentation
> also makes reference to what the “outfile” and “infile” represent.

> That being said, I can see how it can be confusing particularly
> if you are reading through the documentation quickly.  Perhaps
> a name like “dumpfile” would be more clear?

+1 ... I thought the same.  Will go fix it.

            regards, tom lane