Thread: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
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? Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ... -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
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.
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).
It could probably deserve a better descirption 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"...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 01/11/2014 03:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > It could probably deserve a better descirption 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"... Bruce can do that part. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
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. +
FYI, I have merged these suggestions into a later thread, that includes
a patch:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140821161846.GC26710@momjian.us#20140821161846.GC26710@momjian.us
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 08:02:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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. +
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +