| From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: server process (PID 2964738) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault |
| Date: | 2022-11-07 15:51:58 |
| Message-ID: | 336c202a-0a0d-f6ce-f764-a8752f2a128e@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/7/22 09:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On 11/7/22 08:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> call. It'd still be recommendable to pg_dumpall and restore into
>>> a freshly-initdb'd cluster, because otherwise you can't be real
>>> sure that you identified and cleared all the data corruption.
>> Why *just* pg_dumpall instead of "pg_dumpall --globals-only" and parallel
>> (for speed) dumps of databases?
> [ shrug... ] Sure, if you like to make your life complicated.
I don't remember if OP specified the size of his cluster, but Size Matters.
Dumping a multi-TB database to an SQL text file, and then restoring it will
be a whole lot slower than doing multi-threaded dump/restore.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sascha Zenglein | 2022-11-07 16:16:07 | AW: AW: Reducing bandwidth usage of database replication |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-07 15:43:21 | Re: server process (PID 2964738) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault |