Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> - For pg_dumpall, a short option "-N" is added for "--no-sync", but not for
>>>   pg_dump (because -N is already taken there).
>>>   I'd opt for either using the same short option for both or (IMO better)
>>>   only offering a long option for both.
>>
>> Okay. For consistency's sake let's do that. I was a bit hesitant
>> regarding that to be honest.
>
> Seems like you have missed to remove -N at some places, as mentioned below.
>
> 1.
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_dumpall.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_dumpall.sgml
> @@ -365,6 +365,21 @@ PostgreSQL documentation
>       </varlistentry>
>
>       <varlistentry>
> +      <term><option>-N</option></term>
>
> @@ -543,6 +557,7 @@ help(void)
>
>
> 2.
>   printf(_("\nGeneral options:\n"));
>   printf(_("  -f, --file=FILENAME          output file name\n"));
> + printf(_("  -N, --no-sync                do not wait for changes to
> be written safely to disk\n"));

v4 fixed those two places.

> 3.
> - while ((c = getopt_long(argc, argv, "acd:f:gh:l:oOp:rsS:tU:vwWx",
> long_options, &optindex)) != -1)
> + while ((c = getopt_long(argc, argv, "acd:f:gh:l:NoOp:rsS:tU:vwWx",
> long_options, &optindex)) != -1)

But not this one...
--
Michael