Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> this works better but there is something fishy still - using the same
>> dump file I get a proper restore using pg_restore normally. If I
>> however use -m for a parallel one I only get parts (in this case only
>> 243 of the 709 tables) of the database restored ...
> Yes, there are several funny things going on, including some stuff
> with dependencies. I'll have a new patch tomorrow with luck. Thanks
> for testing.
OK, in this version a whole heap of bugs are fixed, mainly those to do
with dependencies and saved state. I get identical row counts in the
source and destination now, quite reliably.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2008-09-29 04:24:48|
|Subject: Re: Ad-hoc table type? |
|Previous:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2008-09-29 02:31:26|
|Subject: Operation needed for datfrozenxid bug?|