Thread: pg_restore new option -m
hi, i've been testing new -m option of pg_restore with great pleasure. first, let me thank the developpers, it cut restoring time by half. is it normal that -m doesn't cope well with -C? createdb db pg_restore -m 4 -d db db.dmp works like a charm while pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time. TIA -- Olivier PRENANT Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work) 15, Chemin des Monges +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax) 31190 AUTERIVE +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM) FRANCE Email: ohp@pyrenet.fr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)
ohp@pyrenet.fr writes:
> pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp
> gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time.
You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m?
regards, tom lane
hi Tom, On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:41:34 -0500 > From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > To: ohp@pyrenet.fr > Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore new option -m > > ohp@pyrenet.fr writes: >> pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp >> gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time. > > You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m? > yes! > regards, tom lane > the pg.gz script shows the output of : pg_restore -C -m pg_restore -C dropdb;createdb; pg_restore -m regards, -- Olivier PRENANT Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work) 15, Chemin des Monges +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax) 31190 AUTERIVE +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM) FRANCE Email: ohp@pyrenet.fr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)
ohp@pyrenet.fr writes:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m?
>>
> yes!
We're going to need to see the test case then.
regards, tom lane
ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote: >> >>> pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp >>> gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time. >> >> You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m? >> > yes! > the pg.gz script shows the output of : > pg_restore -C -m > pg_restore -C > dropdb;createdb; pg_restore -m > > OK, I'll look at it later today. cheers andrew
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:05:32 -0500 > From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > To: ohp@pyrenet.fr > Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore new option -m > > ohp@pyrenet.fr writes: >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Tom Lane wrote: >>> You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m? >>> >> yes! > > We're going to need to see the test case then. > > regards, tom lane > they were included in the last mail :) -- Olivier PRENANT Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work) 15, Chemin des Monges +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax) 31190 AUTERIVE +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM) FRANCE Email: ohp@pyrenet.fr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)
Tom Lane wrote: > ohp@pyrenet.fr writes: > >> pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp >> gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time. >> > > You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m? > Yeah, I have reproduced this. It's because we reconnect to the wrong db in this case (i.e. to the -d database, not the created one) in the workers and subsequent connects. I've applied a trivial patch to fix it. cheers andrew
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:58:18 -0500 > From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> > To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Cc: ohp@pyrenet.fr, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore new option -m > > > > Tom Lane wrote: >> ohp@pyrenet.fr writes: >> >>> pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp >>> gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time. >>> >> >> You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m? >> > > > > Yeah, I have reproduced this. It's because we reconnect to the wrong db in > this case (i.e. to the -d database, not the created one) in the workers and > subsequent connects. > > I've applied a trivial patch to fix it. > works like a charm! > cheers > > andrew > > > > thanks -- Olivier PRENANT Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work) 15, Chemin des Monges +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax) 31190 AUTERIVE +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM) FRANCE Email: ohp@pyrenet.fr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)