Tom, * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > As far as the documentation/definition aspect goes, I think it should > just say the parts are > * stuff needed before you can load the data > * the data > * stuff needed after loading the data > and not try to be any more specific than that. There are corner cases > that will turn any simple breakdown into a lie, and I doubt that it's > worth trying to explain them all. (Take a close look at the dependency > loop breaking logic in pg_dump if you doubt this.)
Even that is a lie though, which I guess is what my problem is. It's
really "everything for the schema, except stuff that is better done in
bulk", I believe. Also, I'm a bit concerned about people who would
argue that you need PKs and FKs before you can load the data. Probably
couldn't be avoided tho.
> I hadn't realized that Simon was using "pre-schema" and "post-schema"
> to name the first and third parts. I'd agree that this is confusing
> nomenclature: it looks like it's trying to say that the data is the
> schema, and the schema is not! How about "pre-data and "post-data"?
Argh. The command-line options follow the 'data'/'load' line
(--schema-pre-load and --schema-post-load), and so I think those are
fine. The problem was that in the documentation he switched to saying
they were "Pre-Schema" and "Post-Schema", which could lead to confusion.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
