Re: Bug in pg_restore ... ?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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