| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gary Chambers <gwchamb(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3682: Incomplete database restore |
| Date: | 2007-10-22 14:40:28 |
| Message-ID: | 6298.1193064028@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:24:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm pretty uncomfortable with the notion of having pg_dump deliberately
>> throw data away. Another problem is that even if we did that, it would
>> only help people who dumped their old DB with 8.3 pg_dump.
> Don't we already say you should use 8.3 pg_dump to dump your old db when
> upgrading?
We recommend that, but we've never required it, and in a lot of scenarios
it's not all that practical to expect people to do that. In any case it
would be more sensible to put the functionality in pg_restore, if we
were going to do any such thing.
What I'm more worried about is that none of the proposed solutions will
help someone with a pg_dumpall dump, since that will be a flat SQL
script ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maryz | 2007-10-22 14:52:11 | BUG #3691: bug in pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-22 14:11:10 | Cursor on an INTERSECT query assertion fails |