Em qua, 13 de fev de 2019 às 19:56, Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> escreveu: > One of the remarkably common user errors with pg_restore is users > leaving off the -d option. (We get cases of it regularly on the IRC > channel, including one just now which prompted me to finally propose > this) > I'm not sure it is a common error. If you want to restore schema and/or data it is natural that I should specify the database name (or at least PGDATABASE).
> I propose we add a new option: --convert-to-text or some such name, and > then make pg_restore throw a usage error if neither -d nor the new > option is given. > However, I agree that pg_restore to stdout if -d wasn't specified is not a good default. The current behavior is the same as "-f -" (however, pg_restore doesn't allow - meaning stdout). Isn't it the case to error out if -d or -f wasn't specified? If we go to this road, -f option should allow - (stdout) as parameter. > (Yes, it will break the scripts of anyone who is currently scripting > pg_restore to output SQL text. How many people do that?) > I use pg_restore to stdout a lot but I wouldn't bother to specify an option to get it (such as pg_restore -Fc -f - /tmp/foo.dmp). -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
