| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David <dlbarron28(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is pg_restore in 10.6 working? |
| Date: | 2018-11-12 21:06:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1937.1542056786@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/12/18 12:39 PM, David wrote:
>> I'm not following your question. The pre-data and post-data sections
>> each go to an individual file, but the data section goes to a
>> directory. I can restore the files using psql, but it is the restore
>> of the directory that is hanging.
The other bit that I think David is missing is that pg_dump's default
output format is a plain-text SQL script, which is meant to be fed to
psql not pg_restore. To get something that pg_restore can work with,
you need to specify one of the non-text dump formats (typically, you'd
use -Fc or -Fd).
The situation in which you'd want to use "pg_restore -f" is if you
want to reconstruct a plain-text SQL script from one of the non-text
dump formats, rather than just restoring directly into a database.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2018-11-12 21:14:28 | Re: Is pg_restore in 10.6 working? |
| Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2018-11-12 21:00:49 | Re: Is pg_restore in 10.6 working? |