Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster
Date
Msg-id a1916786-21e4-e336-47d6-71057a45ded0@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster
pg_dumpall --exclude-database case folding, was Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster
List pgsql-performance
On 6/10/21 2:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <postgresql@mailpen.com> writes:
>> On 2021-06-10 09:54, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>>> Your cmd lacks =
>>> =>pg_dumpall -U Admin --exclude-database=MailPen >zzz.sql
>> I read that before posting, but missed that.  Old command line patterns 
>> die hard!
>> However, the result was the same:  3.5GB before running out of space.
> [ experiments... ]  Looks like you gotta do it like this:
>
>     pg_dumpall '--exclude-database="MailPen"' ...
>
> This surprises me, as I thought it was project policy not to
> case-fold command-line arguments (precisely because you end
> up needing weird quoting to prevent that).
>
>             



Ouch. That looks like a plain old bug. Let's fix it. IIRC I just used
the same logic that we use for pg_dump's --exclude-* options, so we need
to check if they have similar issues.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com




pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster
Next
From: "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)"
Date:
Subject: Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster