Message-ID: <5587E6F9.50702@afilias.info>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:44:09 +0200
From: Ziggy Skalski <zskalski@afilias.info>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade
References: <1862034146.20150622111438@workfile.de>
 <e84cbc3cee08d8569cd670860c2b1900@imap.lan.net>
In-Reply-To: <e84cbc3cee08d8569cd670860c2b1900@imap.lan.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

On 2015-06-22 12:36 PM, Jan Lentfer wrote:
> Am 2015-06-22 11:14, schrieb Rainer Leo:
>> pg_upgrade Hello,
>>
>>  we are still using PostgreSQL 9.0.2 on Windows Server.
>>
>>  Now we are migrating to Windows Server 2012 R2 and we
>>  would like to migrate PostgreSQL at the same time to
>>  the current version 9.4.4-1
>>
>>  Which is the best way to migrate the data?
>>
>>  1. pg_dump on the old server
>>  2. pg_retore on the new server
>>  3. pg_upgrade on the new server
>>
>>  Is this correct or is there a "best procedure" to do this?
>
> You do either 1 + 2 OR 3. pg_upgrade is binary upgrade, where as 
> pg_dump + pg_restore is "logical" (dump data and schemal to SQL 
> instructions). If you go that way also check pg_dumpall for dumping 
> the globals.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jan
>
>
Also, for 1+2 you would be advised to do the pg_dump/restore using the 
*new* binaries (9.4), things could get tricky otherwise...

Ziggy


-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin