Re: [GENERAL] 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-general
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
-- Well sure, I can see it increases your chances of getting _something_ restored. But there's also a lot to be said for ensuring that _all_ your data restored, and did so correctly, no?Record the errors, and look through them to decide if they are important or not.
I'd still rather have the data be correct, or not at all. It also greatly increases the chances someone will notice it, and let me know about it.
But better yet, use v9.2 of pg_dump to dump things out of a 9.2 server which you want to load to another 9.2 server. Don't be at the mercy of your $PATH.
Yep, that's the direction I went.
(Or even more better yet, upgrade the servers from 9.2 to 9.6, and then use 9.6's pg_dump)
On the todo list. I don't imagine though that I'm the only one who would install a newer version of PG, do some testing, and then upgrade DBs to the newer version, and possibly not do it all immediately and at once.
I think it's great and impressive that you can install and run two versions simultaneously, but I have found a couple gotchas in the process. Maybe those are documented somewhere, but if so I haven't seen it. The issues I hit all had fairly easy solutions, but I'd humbly suggest that a "things to watch out for when running multiple versions of Postgres concurrently" might be a useful document.
Cheers,
Ken
AGENCY Software
A Free Software data system
By and for non-profits
learn more about AGENCY or
follow the discussion.
pgsql-general by date: