On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:41:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not sure what "many limitations" you think pg_dumpall has that pg_dump > doesn't. > > I do think that it might be time to reword this to recommend pg_upgrade > first, though. ISTM that the current wording dates from when pg_upgrade > could charitably be described as experimental.
Wow, so pg_upgrade takes the lead! And from Tom too! :-) I agree with Tom that mentioning pg_dump/restore is going to lead to global object data loss, and throwing the users to a URL with no explaination isn't going to help either. What we could do is to restructure the existing text and add a link to the upgrade URL for more details. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
