On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:47:43PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > 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.
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 <br...@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
