Re: fine tuned database dump/reload?

From: "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, "Postgres General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fine tuned database dump/reload?
Date: 2005-10-18 04:52:16
Message-ID: BB4329D6F8E32046ACFC6631ACA3E7BA18FC39@koolancexeon.g2switchworks.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Vivek Khera
Sent: Mon 10/17/2005 3:35 PM
To: Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] fine tuned database dump/reload?

On Oct 17, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Dan Armbrust wrote:

> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > pg_dump handles table ordering properly.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I missed something then, because it didn't last time I tried
> > to move some data. I had to drop my foreign keys before I could
> > reload it.

> This is my experience as well. pg_dump doesn't work in the presence
> of FK's always.

Ive had few problems, and every one has been fixed by a newer version of pg_dump. I would imagine a mode that dumps for an older version would be useful, so that if you found something in 7.4 that didn't dump with 7.4's pg_dump, but can be dumped with 8.0, it wouldn't use any 8.0isms in it's dump. Or does that already happen automagically? I can't tell from the docs that it does.

I have seen people show up with issues with dumps and seen them fixed fairly quick, either with a work around via pg_restore, or a patch.

What problems have you run into lately? And could pg_restore fix them, or were they too hairy?

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Devrim GUNDUZ 2005-10-18 06:34:58 Re: PG 8.0.4, Centos and 64 bit
Previous Message Sri 2005-10-18 04:21:01 Re: Problem using start transaction in nested transactions.