From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Gimenez <gimenez(at)ibdm(dot)univ-mrs(dot)fr> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large object and pg_restore problem |
Date: | 2007-05-07 18:03:33 |
Message-ID: | 15490.1178561013@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Gregory Gimenez <gimenez(at)ibdm(dot)univ-mrs(dot)fr> writes:
> So, we try to get rid of this particular image by first deleting the
> picture row with this corresponding oid and then making a vaccumdb +
> reindex to delete the reference in the pg_largeoject but still the
> largeobject is there.
Well, yeah, you didn't delete the large object. Since you're restoring
the whole DB, why don't you just drop and recreate the database?
If you really don't want to do that, contrib/vacuumlo might help you, or
in the longer term consider using the contrib/lo datatype instead of
bare OIDs for referencing large objects.
BTW, using -i with pg_dump or pg_restore on a routine basis is
extremely bad practice. It will bite you eventually. If pg_dump
doesn't want to play with your server version, there is probably
a good reason, and you should not override it without knowing
exactly what you are doing and why it's safe for the particular
combination of versions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | A. Kretschmer | 2007-05-07 18:04:29 | Re: Postgre Sql 7.3 connection problem |
Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2007-05-07 18:02:14 | Re: Date Math |