Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The name of this new option is a bit of a mouthful, and it mixes in
> an otherwise standardized term (deferrable, as in constraints) with
> transaction isolation. Wouldn't something like
> --wait-for-serializable be clearer (and shorter)?
I see it's not mentioned in the description of the pg_dump option,
but the option name is based on the new (PostgreSQL-specific)
DEFERRABLE transaction property which is used when the option is
specified.
See if it makes more sense after reading this page:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-set-transaction.html
Personally, I think DEFERRABLE is a good name for the transaction
property; it conveys the right semantics and avoids adding a new
reserved word. The question of what to name it was first raised
almost eight months ago, and it has been discussed many times since.
http://search.postgresql.org/search?q=kevin+serializable+deferrable&m=1&l=1&d=365&s=d
I'm less concerned about the pg_dump name, if you think something
else is clearer; although this one isn't the longest pg_dump option
we have.
-Kevin