Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [GENERAL] 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ken Tanzer
Subject Re: [GENERAL] 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore
Date
Msg-id CAD3a31VRtpdpagowOBmcGrDoOkTyRRqiSpAQwJ9aat6pJAi+kQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore
Re: [GENERAL] 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore
List pgsql-general
Tree view
Thanks for the responses.  For me, using the 9.2 binary was the winner.  Shoulda thought of that!

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Generally speaking, it helps a lot if you don't insist on restoring the
output in a single transaction.  In this case, that would allow the
restore to ignore the new parameters and move on.

                        regards, tom lane

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?

Cheers,
Ken


--
AGENCY Software  
A Free Software data system
By and for non-profits
(253) 245-3801

learn more about AGENCY or
follow the discussion.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Alain Toussaint
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Insertion of large xml files into PostgreSQL 10beta1
Next
From: Timokhin Maxim
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] duplicate key value violates unique constraint and duplicated records