Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WYOvW-00039K-GI for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:02:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WYOvV-0003gp-RR for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:02:37 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WYOvV-0003gj-73 for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:02:37 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WYOvS-0000u5-PY for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:02:36 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WYOvR-0003vz-4t; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:02:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:02:33 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Magnus Hagander Cc: Josh Berkus , pgsql-docs Subject: Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Message-ID: <20140411000233.GL6917@momjian.us> References: <52D03988.6030609@agliodbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:47:43PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus 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 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