On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@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/
