You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Although the documentation is technically correct on this, it would be really
helpful to make it crystal clear that in the same_schema action the --exclude
options works on a completely different logic than in most other actions that
follow the scheme explained in the section "BASIC FILTERING".
I would change this paragraph
"You may exclude all objects of a certain name by using the "exclude" option.
It takes a Perl regular expression as its argument."
to
"You may exclude all objects of a certain name by using the "exclude" option.
It takes a Perl regular expression as its argument. The option can be repeated
to specify multiple patterns to exclude. (Note that the --exclude option for
this action does not follow the logic explained in the "BASIC FILTERING"
section.)"
The alternative would be to eliminate this distinction, but that might break
too many things for users.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ID: 75
Version: unspecified
Date: 2011-04-19 08:27 EDT
Author: Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net)
Although the documentation is technically correct on this, it would be really
helpful to make it crystal clear that in the same_schema action the --exclude
options works on a completely different logic than in most other actions that
follow the scheme explained in the section "BASIC FILTERING".
I would change this paragraph
"You may exclude all objects of a certain name by using the "exclude" option.
It takes a Perl regular expression as its argument."
to
"You may exclude all objects of a certain name by using the "exclude" option.
It takes a Perl regular expression as its argument. The option can be repeated
to specify multiple patterns to exclude. (Note that the --exclude option for
this action does not follow the logic explained in the "BASIC FILTERING"
section.)"
The alternative would be to eliminate this distinction, but that might break
too many things for users.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: