Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.21.0005050143300.56194-100000@thelab.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
okay, I did the RC5 pg_dumpall and am doing a reload ... call me chicken :) On Fri, 5 May 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > 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 > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: