Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEyZRDb6G5zdp3uPzhYELdT8trZBpTVKbiKqoFe2yDA87Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
|
| Список | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
Folks:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html
... no mention of pg_restore of any kind. Is there any reason why
someone (maybe me) *shouldn't* rewrite this to include pg_restore?
I can't see any reason - it definitely should mention it.
Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ...
Yes. And recommending pg_dumpall > sqlfile, but that goes hand in hand with that.
It also says that the least-downtime way is to use pg_dumpall in a pipe to psql. That's clearly not correct, since it does not support parallel restore (or parallel dump).
It could probably deserve a better descirption of pg_upgrade as well, and an outline of the differences. Right now we spend the majority of the page on pg_dump, and then just say "oh, with pg_upgrade it only takes minutes"...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: