Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4960.957501138@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > okay, something that I think needs to be clarified ... RC5 requires an > initdb, so you have to do a pg_dumpall first, then initdb, then reload ... > your recent fixes ... should we be running pg_dumpall from RC5 on our RC4 > databases, or does it not matter? I'm using the RC5 one right now, and > all appears correct, but I figured I'd ask ... pg_upgrade should work, or at least it's worth trying --- see the message I just posted. If you have anything in pg_group then the best procedure is to use the RC5 pg_dumpall, since RC4 and before's pg_dumpall neglects to dump pg_group. In any case, RC4 and before's pg_upgrade is now known to be broken, so be sure you use RC5's script at that point. Or just use dump/initdb/reload, but it'd be nice to get some pounding on pg_upgrade and find out if it's trustworthy now. I'd definitely recommend a full pg_dumpall before experimenting with pg_upgrade, just in case things go worng ;-) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: