I still don't understand why the OP is getting into so much trouble and
doesn't upgrade to a newer version like 9.3 or 9.4 (or even 9.5).
All this hassle to stay on an unsupported postgres is just useless, IMNSHO.
Regards,
El 28/05/16 a las 12:26, Francisco Olarte escribió:
> Jeff:
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Jeff Baldwin <tarheeljeff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you for your time Alan.
> ..
>> To move the DB, you are suggesting something like this:
>> pg_dump -h dbms11 -U postgres -C mls11 | psql -h localhost -d mls11 -U
>> postgres
>
> I'd like to point one thing, you MAY get a little more speed if you
> run pg_dump AND psql each in the same host as the DB it's operating on
> to minimize latency ( and I would time unix socket vs network first in
> case it differs ). ( to do that I would try something like 'ssh dbms11
> "pg_dump mls11 " | psql -d mls11' with all the needed doodahs, and
> maybe use something like netcat or socat instead of ssh ). The
> rationale being the intermediate dump is just a data stream and not
> latency sensitive ( except for the window*latency problem, but you are
> not going to hit that on a LAN ), while the dump/restore does DB work
> which is more latency sensitive ( I do not know how many RTTs it would
> need, specially with blobs, but you can try it ).
>
> ¿ How many hours does it take in your tests? Because if you have 1-2
> and you can do the dump psql pipe trick, which is quite robust, in 3-4
> you may push for it ( arguing it's a simpler an more testable process
> ).
>
> Francisco Olarte.
>
>
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
