On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:47:43PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 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.
Yes, it is pg_dumpall that is driving the psql example. Should we just
reference the SQL Dump section of our docs rather than giving examples
in this section? I am noticing we don't warn about the pg_dumpall
--globals-only requirement anywhere in our SQL Dump docs, and I don't
see it in the reference pages either.
> 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).
>
> In short, +1 for you to write a patch that changes that.
OK.
> It could probably deserve a better description 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"...
OK, I will try to work on that. I think I am going to need to change
several parts of the docs to complete this.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
