Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:58:39 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
Message-ID: <20140825175839.GA28266@momjian.us>
References: <52D03988.6030609@agliodbs.com>
 <CABUevEyZRDb6G5zdp3uPzhYELdT8trZBpTVKbiKqoFe2yDA87Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140411000233.GL6917@momjian.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140411000233.GL6917@momjian.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org


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. +


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