On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> > However, we need to rethink the flag to be used for this: pg_dumpall >> > uses -l, but many of the other utilities already use that for some >> > other purpose, and it's not exactly mnemonic anyway. ?"-d" for >> > database could work, but that's also in use in some places, and >> > furthermore somewhat confusing since many if not all of these >> > utilities have an option to operate on a single database only, and you >> > might think that -d would specify the database to operate on, rather >> > than the one to be used to get the list of databases. ?pgAdmin uses >> > the term "maintenance database" to refer to a database to be used when >> > none is explicitly specified, and I think that's fairly clear >> > terminology. ?So I propose that we add a --maintenance-db option (with >> > no short form, since this is a relatively obscure need) to the tools >> > listed above. ?The tools will pass the associated value (or NULL if >> > the option is not specified) to the above-mentioned routine in >> > common.c, which will do the rest. >> > >> > If nobody objects, I'll go do that. ?Hopefully that should be enough >> > to put this problem to bed more or less permanently. >> >> All right, I've worked up a (rather boring and tedious) patch to do >> this, which is attached. > > I wonder if we should bother using a flag for this. No one has asked > for one, and the new code to conditionally connect to databases should > function fine for most use cases.
True, but OTOH we have such a flag for pg_dumpall, and I've already done the work. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
