Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency
Date
Msg-id 1385153125.34312.YahooMailNeo@web162904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> That looks sane for pg_dump, but I would rather have expected
> that pg_dumpall would need to emit the same thing (possibly more
> than once due to reconnections).

I was kinda surprised myself.  I changed it for pg_dump, tested
that, and then tested pg_dumpall to get a baseline, and the setting
was taken care of.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Building on S390