On 02/25/2014 04:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
What I was suggesting was something like: "Users upgrading from earlier versions will need to go through the entire upgrade procedure, as described on our upgrade page: <link>" The problem is that anything we say about "how to upgrade" in one short sentence is going to confuse some people. BTW, the reason I got that question about pg_dump was that 9.2's release notes say "pg_dump" and 9.3's say "pg_dumpall", causing users to think there's been some kind of change. Of course, this means I need to fix the upgrade page, and I need to write backported versions of that fix for at least 9.1 and 9.2. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers