Thanks David for the explanation - balancing between TLDR and simplistic. Those two sentences (from David) make easier to read and understand.
with regards, Srinivasa Meka (he) | DevOps Solutions Architect sm...@purestorage.com <mailto:sm...@purestorage.com> ========== > On Jan 21, 2022, at 10:05 AM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:37 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at > <mailto:laurenz.a...@cybertec.at>> wrote: > On Thu, 2022-01-20 at 19:46 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/backup-dump.html > > <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/backup-dump.html> > > Description: > > > > Text: This is necessary to fully backup the cluster if running the pg_dump > > command on individual databases. > > > > Please provide an explanation or re-write the same, thanks. > > Hm, yes, that could be improved. Perhaps: > > This is required for a full backup of the cluster that is performed > by pg_dump on the individual databases. > > > I don't see a problem with the existing wording. And as the OP hasn't really > described what is confusing them it is difficult to contemplate a rewrite > that would remove that confusion. > > The sentence means that one must run pg_dumpall --globals-only (that is what > "this" is referring to without doubt) and add the result to their backup > (implied by the wording "necessary to fully backup"; this data is missing...) > if their backup routine consists of backing up individual databases using the > pg_dump command (exact wording). > > If anything, whether one chooses to backup all databases in a cluster > individually using pg_dump is immaterial. Any single database backed up > using pg_dump is incomplete if it is restored into an empty cluster. One > must also restore the globals into that cluster first to produce a valid > restoration of that database. The existing wording implies as much (and we > rightly assume restoration into a freshly initialized cluster) so still no > word-smithing seems needed here. > > But hopefully the OP is less confused now. > > David J.
