From: | "Phoenix Kiula" <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Terry Lee Tucker" <terry(at)chosen-ones(dot)org> |
Cc: | "PG-General Mailing List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Dumping/Restoring with constraints? |
Date: | 2008-08-27 13:36:35 |
Message-ID: | e373d31e0808270636q5120e562vd04c959e3fb9b5aa@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-general |
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Terry Lee Tucker <terry(at)chosen-ones(dot)org> wrote:
> We have all sorts of constraints and foreign keys and we have never had any
> problem with pg_restore related to dumping such that foreign keys are
> satisfied. You must have data already in the database that violates the
> restraints. You can restore in two phases; that is, by restoring the schema,
> and then the data using --disable-triggers. I'm assuming you are doing a
> binary dump. See the man page for pg_restore.
Thanks for this. I don't have any foreign key violations in my
existing database. I think the violation is happening because upon
restoring the table that is being populated checks in another table
that doesn't yet have data.
I am not using pg_restore. I am just using "psql --file=FILENAME"
syntax. Is that an issue?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Nolan | 2008-08-27 13:52:03 | Re: [GENERAL] PITR - base backup question |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-08-27 13:32:56 | Re: [GENERAL] PITR - base backup question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sam Mason | 2008-08-27 13:47:24 | Re: loop vs. aggregate was: update and group by/aggregate |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-08-27 13:32:56 | Re: [GENERAL] PITR - base backup question |