public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedUpgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
5+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
@ 2014-01-10 18:18 Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2014-01-11 11:47 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2014-01-10 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
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?
Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ...
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
2014-01-10 18:18 Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
@ 2014-01-11 11:47 ` Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2014-01-12 03:20 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2014-04-11 00:02 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Magnus Hagander @ 2014-01-11 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 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/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
2014-01-10 18:18 Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2014-01-11 11:47 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
@ 2014-01-12 03:20 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2014-01-12 03:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On 01/11/2014 03:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 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"...
Bruce can do that part.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
2014-01-10 18:18 Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2014-01-11 11:47 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
@ 2014-04-11 00:02 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2014-08-25 17:58 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2014-04-11 00:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:47:43PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all
2014-01-10 18:18 Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2014-01-11 11:47 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2014-04-11 00:02 ` Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
@ 2014-08-25 17:58 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2014-08-25 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>; +Cc: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
FYI, I have merged these suggestions into a later thread, that includes
a patch:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/[email protected]#20140821161846.GC26710@m...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + Everyone has their own god. +
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-08-25 17:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-01-10 18:18 Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2014-01-11 11:47 ` Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2014-01-12 03:20 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
2014-04-11 00:02 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2014-08-25 17:58 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox