* 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.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to