MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52D03988.6030609@agliodbs.com>
References: <52D03988.6030609@agliodbs.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:47:43 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CABUevEyZRDb6G5zdp3uPzhYELdT8trZBpTVKbiKqoFe2yDA87Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcecb61aab3c04efb069c3
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

--047d7bfcecb61aab3c04efb069c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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.

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.

It could probably deserve a better descirption 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"...

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

--047d7bfcecb61aab3c04efb069c3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:josh@agliodbs.com" target=3D"_blank">josh@agliodbs.com</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Folks:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html" target=
=3D"_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html</a><br=
>
<br>
... no mention of pg_restore of any kind. =A0Is there any reason why<br>
someone (maybe me) *shouldn&#39;t* rewrite this to include pg_restore?<br><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can&#39;t see any reason - it definitely =
should mention it.</div><div>=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex">

Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ...<br></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>Yes. And recommending pg_dumpall &gt; sqlfile, but=
 that goes hand in hand with that.</div><div><br></div><div>It also says th=
at the least-downtime way is to use pg_dumpall in a pipe to psql. That&#39;=
s clearly not correct, since it does not support parallel restore (or paral=
lel dump).=A0</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div>In short, +1 for you to write a =
patch that changes that.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra">It could probably deserve a better descirption of pg_upg=
rade as well, and an outline of the differences. Right now we spend the maj=
ority of the page on pg_dump, and then just say &quot;oh, with pg_upgrade i=
t only takes minutes&quot;...<br clear=3D"all">
<div><br></div>-- <br>=A0Magnus Hagander<br>=A0Me: <a href=3D"http://www.ha=
gander.net/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.hagander.net/</a><br>=A0Work: <a =
href=3D"http://www.redpill-linpro.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.redpil=
l-linpro.com/</a>
</div></div>

--047d7bfcecb61aab3c04efb069c3--