Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

Folks:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html

... no mention of pg_restore of any kind. Is there any reason why
someone (maybe me) *shouldn't* rewrite this to include pg_restore?

I can't see any reason - it definitely should mention it.

Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ...

Yes. And recommending pg_dumpall > sqlfile, but that goes hand in hand with
that.

It also says that the least-downtime way is to use pg_dumpall in a pipe to
psql. That's clearly not correct, since it does not support parallel
restore (or parallel dump).

In short, +1 for you to write a patch that changes that.

It could probably deserve a better descirption of pg_upgrade as well, and
an outline of the differences. Right now we spend the majority of the page
on pg_dump, and then just say "oh, with pg_upgrade it only takes minutes"...

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On 01/11/2014 03:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

It could probably deserve a better descirption of pg_upgrade as well, and
an outline of the differences. Right now we spend the majority of the page
on pg_dump, and then just say "oh, with pg_upgrade it only takes minutes"...

Bruce can do that part.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:47:43PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

Folks:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html

... no mention of pg_restore of any kind. Is there any reason why
someone (maybe me) *shouldn't* rewrite this to include pg_restore?

I can't see any reason - it definitely should mention it.

Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ...

Yes. And recommending pg_dumpall > sqlfile, but that goes hand in hand with
that.

Yes, it is pg_dumpall that is driving the psql example. Should we just
reference the SQL Dump section of our docs rather than giving examples
in this section? I am noticing we don't warn about the pg_dumpall
--globals-only requirement anywhere in our SQL Dump docs, and I don't
see it in the reference pages either.

It also says that the least-downtime way is to use pg_dumpall in a pipe to
psql. That's clearly not correct, since it does not support parallel restore
(or parallel dump).

In short, +1 for you to write a patch that changes that.

OK.

It could probably deserve a better description of pg_upgrade as well, and an
outline of the differences. Right now we spend the majority of the page on
pg_dump, and then just say "oh, with pg_upgrade it only takes minutes"...

OK, I will try to work on that. I think I am going to need to change
several parts of the docs to complete this.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

FYI, I have merged these suggestions into a later thread, that includes
a patch:

/messages/by-id/20140821161846.GC26710@momjian.us

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 08:02:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:47:43PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

Folks:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html

... no mention of pg_restore of any kind. Is there any reason why
someone (maybe me) *shouldn't* rewrite this to include pg_restore?

I can't see any reason - it definitely should mention it.

Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ...

Yes. And recommending pg_dumpall > sqlfile, but that goes hand in hand with
that.

Yes, it is pg_dumpall that is driving the psql example. Should we just
reference the SQL Dump section of our docs rather than giving examples
in this section? I am noticing we don't warn about the pg_dumpall
--globals-only requirement anywhere in our SQL Dump docs, and I don't
see it in the reference pages either.

It also says that the least-downtime way is to use pg_dumpall in a pipe to
psql. That's clearly not correct, since it does not support parallel restore
(or parallel dump).

In short, +1 for you to write a patch that changes that.

OK.

It could probably deserve a better description of pg_upgrade as well, and an
outline of the differences. Right now we spend the majority of the page on
pg_dump, and then just say "oh, with pg_upgrade it only takes minutes"...

OK, I will try to work on that. I think I am going to need to change
several parts of the docs to complete this.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs