Alright gentlemen here we go, take two.
backup.sgml-cmd-v002.patch addresses your feedback and offers a better worded
statements that avoid implying that some features are being deprecated when it
isn't the case. We also spent some more time polishing other details, like
making adjustments to
Hello everyone!
I'd like to thank you for quick replies and for the thoughtful feedback.
I'm working on improving the current wording and I'm going to follow up shortly
with an updated version.
Please, stay tuned.
Ivan
On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Ivan Lezhnjov IV i...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to submit the following patch that extends backup.sgml with a bit of
practical but important information.
Project: postgresql
Patch filename: backup.sgml-cmd-v001.patch
The patch extends
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what others think, but the proposed wording seems a
bit hard on plain text dumps to me.
Agreed. I don't know how many times I've piped the output of
pg_dump to the input of psql. Certainly that was very common
before pg_upgrade was
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'm not sure what others think, but the proposed wording seems a bit
hard on plain text dumps to me.
I wasn't terribly thrilled with labeling pg_dumpall deprecated,
either. It might be imperfect for some use cases, but that adjective
suggests that
Hello,
I'd like to submit the following patch that extends backup.sgml with a bit of
practical but important information.
Project: postgresql
Patch filename: backup.sgml-cmd-v001.patch
The patch extends backup.sgml and adds practical information on custom format
backups approach. Basically,