| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
| Cc: | APseudoUtopia <apseudoutopia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Server Backup: pg_dump vs pg_dumpall |
| Date: | 2009-07-21 00:03:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4A6505D2.2050602@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
John R Pierce wrote:
> APseudoUtopia wrote:
> ...
>>
>> I was leaning towards pg_dumpall, but then I realized that it only
>> dumps in the standard SQL text file format, and it cannot be
>> compressed automatically.
>
> pgdumpall .... | gzip > dumpfile.sql.gz
>
>
>
That deals with compression. But if you want to use the new
parallel-restore feature in 8.4 pg_restore which can be *way* faster if
you have multiple cores available then you will need to backup using
pg_dump with the custom format (-Fc).
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-07-21 01:00:17 | Re: Help needed for reading postgres log : RE: Concurrency issue under very heay loads |
| Previous Message | David Kerr | 2009-07-20 23:33:24 | Re: killing processes |