From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_restore ... ? |
Date: | 2005-06-10 15:56:54 |
Message-ID: | 20050610125305.Y90456@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Yeah it is an ordering problem with pg_dump...
>
> If you are using pg_restore you can hack around the problem by using
> pg_restore's load-order-control switch (which was invented exactly to
> let people work around pg_dump's problems ;-)). In this case though,
> the simplest answer is probably to install tsearch2 into the new
> database before you run pg_restore. It'll complain that the functions
> already exist, but you can ignore that.
More then just that ... it errors out trying to create tables that already
exist from loading tsearch2.sql:
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: relation "pg_ts_dict" already exists
So that doesn't appear to be an option either ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-10 16:12:05 | Re: proposed TODO: non-locking CREATE INDEX / REINDEX |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-10 15:48:08 | Concrete proposal for large objects and MVCC |