Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:39:28 +1000
From: raf <postgres@raf.org>
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Help with "gpg -d ... | pg_restore ..." with unimportant
 pg_restore errors
Message-ID: <ZtfIYOzklqtEvIOs@raf.org>
References: <Zte4r3rQ9_GbCZe-@raf.org>
 <CAKFQuwZsJ+oGEiyxFLppF7c-JU5=00u0pwZdqjqrnV94uL6oUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZtfEsfn1HaxQyy2x@raf.org>
 <1543230.1725416924@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1543230.1725416924@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZtfIYOzklqtEvIOs%40raf.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:28:44PM -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> raf <postgres@raf.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 06:43:22PM -0700, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You specified “-1” so I don’t get why you believe pg_restore should be
> >> continuing to execute in the face of the SQL error.
> 
> > The reason I believe pg_restore should be continuing to execute in the face of
> > the SQL error is because I didn't supply the -e option which is described
> > thusly in the pg_restore manual entry:
> 
> But you'd better also read the para about -1:
> 
>   -1
>   --single-transaction
>     Execute the restore as a single transaction (that is, wrap the
>     emitted commands in BEGIN/COMMIT). This ensures that either all
>     the commands complete successfully, or no changes are
>     applied. This option implies --exit-on-error.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 

Yes, I saw that. Many thanks. All good now.

cheer,
raf