Thread: How to recovery data from folder data installation?

Hi.
 
I am trouble with my server postres on linux. It crashed!. I have folder postgres installation that was my server. Is possible recovery data from folder postgres installation? For example folder data?
 
Any can help me!!!!
 
Note: Sorry my bad english.
 
Thank you! 

---

Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!

Orlando Solarte wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am trouble with my server postres on linux. It crashed!. I have folder
> postgres installation that was my server. Is possible recovery data from
> folder postgres installation? For example folder data?

Unfortunately you have provided very little information.

If you mean that the PostgreSQL database server crashed and will no
longer start up, then you would need to provide the messages PostgreSQL
prints to its log files when it tries and fails to start up.

If you mean that the server computer its self crashed, and you now have
a PostgreSQL data directory (from backups or recovered from the server's
 hard disk) then if the PostgreSQL data directory is undamaged it should
be possible to use it. You will need to use it with a version of
PostgreSQL with the same minor version as the one you were using on the
server, eg if you were using 8.1.4 you should get the latest PostgreSQL
in the 8.1 series (NOT 8.2 or 8.3) to try to read the data.

Make a copy first.

--
Craig Ringer

Craig Ringer wrote:
> Orlando Solarte wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I am trouble with my server postres on linux. It crashed!. I have
> > folder postgres installation that was my server. Is possible
> > recovery data from folder postgres installation? For example folder
> > data?
>
> Unfortunately you have provided very little information.
>
> If you mean that the PostgreSQL database server crashed and will no
> longer start up, then you would need to provide the messages
> PostgreSQL prints to its log files when it tries and fails to start
> up.
>
> If you mean that the server computer its self crashed, and you now
> have a PostgreSQL data directory (from backups or recovered from the
> server's hard disk) then if the PostgreSQL data directory is
> undamaged it should be possible to use it. You will need to use it
> with a version of PostgreSQL with the same minor version as the one
> you were using on the server, eg if you were using 8.1.4 you should
> get the latest PostgreSQL in the 8.1 series (NOT 8.2 or 8.3) to try
> to read the data.

What you mean here is of course that you should be using the same
*major* version, but the latest available *minor* version.

Other than that, it's correct - and the version numbers in the example
is correct :-)

//Magnus

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>> with a version of PostgreSQL with the same minor version as the one
>> you were using on the server, eg if you were using 8.1.4 you should
>> get the latest PostgreSQL in the 8.1 series (NOT 8.2 or 8.3) to try
>> to read the data.
>
> What you mean here is of course that you should be using the same
> *major* version, but the latest available *minor* version.
>
> Other than that, it's correct - and the version numbers in the example
> is correct :-)

If we want to stop people from being confused about this terminology,
we would need to make our definitions of these terms more visible
on the main web site.

Many places talk about the "latest release" - but unfortunately
with differing definitions.  For example, "latest release" is
   defined as 8.3 in the english language FAQ;
   defined as 8.3.1 and 8.2.7, etc on the english language home page;
   defined as 8.2.3 on the traditional chinese FAQ, etc.

Some places (the english FAQ) talk about "major releases" happening every
year and "minor releases" happening every few months, but without defining
what that means to the numbering.

Perhaps there should be a FAQ that says that our numbering system
defines the digits as "marketing"."major"."minor".

It's no surprise to me that people don't use those terms consistently.

Ron Mayer wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> with a version of PostgreSQL with the same minor version as the one
> >> you were using on the server, eg if you were using 8.1.4 you should
> >> get the latest PostgreSQL in the 8.1 series (NOT 8.2 or 8.3) to try
> >> to read the data.
> >
> > What you mean here is of course that you should be using the same
> > *major* version, but the latest available *minor* version.
> >
> > Other than that, it's correct - and the version numbers in the example
> > is correct :-)
>
> If we want to stop people from being confused about this terminology,
> we would need to make our definitions of these terms more visible
> on the main web site.
>
> Many places talk about the "latest release" - but unfortunately
> with differing definitions.  For example, "latest release" is
>    defined as 8.3 in the english language FAQ;

FAQ updated.

>    defined as 8.3.1 and 8.2.7, etc on the english language home page;
>    defined as 8.2.3 on the traditional chinese FAQ, etc.
>
> Some places (the english FAQ) talk about "major releases" happening every
> year and "minor releases" happening every few months, but without defining
> what that means to the numbering.
>
> Perhaps there should be a FAQ that says that our numbering system
> defines the digits as "marketing"."major"."minor".

That is in our documentation.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > Craig Ringer wrote:
> > >> with a version of PostgreSQL with the same minor version as the
> > >> one you were using on the server, eg if you were using 8.1.4 you
> > >> should get the latest PostgreSQL in the 8.1 series (NOT 8.2 or
> > >> 8.3) to try to read the data.
> > >
> > > What you mean here is of course that you should be using the same
> > > *major* version, but the latest available *minor* version.
> > >
> > > Other than that, it's correct - and the version numbers in the
> > > example is correct :-)
> >
> > If we want to stop people from being confused about this
> > terminology, we would need to make our definitions of these terms
> > more visible on the main web site.
> >
> > Many places talk about the "latest release" - but unfortunately
> > with differing definitions.  For example, "latest release" is
> >    defined as 8.3 in the english language FAQ;
>
> FAQ updated.

I would suggest that we don't keep the "latest version" information in
the FAQ at all, but instead just have a pointer to the homepage which
will always be updated. So we don't risk missing the update again.


//Magnus