Changes made.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ! printf(_(" -C, --create process commands to create the
> > database\n"));
>
> Wow, that's just about *completely* content-f
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ! printf(_(" -C, --create process commands to create the
> database\n"));
Wow, that's just about *completely* content-free. Obviously
documentation written by a committee :-(
How about
! printf(_(" -d, --dbname=NAMEcon
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> However, I wonder if "output database" is the proper name for -d?
>> Isn't it more "restore database" or "target database"?
> "restore database name" sounds like, "When this option is specified,
> only the database name is re
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, wording updated and applied. I used "process" instead of
> "issue".
I think this is drifting farther and farther from the target... Does
anyone else have a wording suggestion?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---
OK, wording updated and applied. I used "process" instead of "issue".
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > However, I wonder if "output database" is the proper name for -d?
> > Isn't it more "restore data
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> However, I wonder if "output database" is the proper name for -d?
> Isn't it more "restore database" or "target database"?
"restore database name" sounds like, "When this option is specified,
only the database name is restored.". "target database" sounds a lot
better.
Y
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> > --
> > Usage:
> > pg_restore [OPTION]... [FILE]
> >
> > General options:
> > -d, --dbname=NAMEoutput database name (to restore into a psql
> > database)
> > -f, --file=FILENAME output f
Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> --
> Usage:
> pg_restore [OPTION]... [FILE]
>
> General options:
> -d, --dbname=NAMEoutput database name (to restore into a psql
> database)
> -f, --file=FILENAME output file name (to convert custom/tar to
> plain
