From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ken Tanzer <ken(dot)tanzer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore |
Date: | 2017-06-29 12:49:20 |
Message-ID: | 78ddcd6d-3764-bf00-857e-e67b680170f1@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 06/29/2017 12:05 AM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
> Thanks for the responses. For me, using the 9.2 binary was the winner.
> Shoulda thought of that!
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
>
>
> Generally speaking, it helps a lot if you don't insist on restoring the
> output in a single transaction. In this case, that would allow the
> restore to ignore the new parameters and move on.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> Well sure, I can see it increases your chances of getting _something_
> restored. But there's also a lot to be said for ensuring that _all_
> your data restored, and did so correctly, no?
If you are using -l to pg_restore then you are also doing
--exit-on-error. In the case you showed(ERROR: unrecognized
configuration parameter "lock_timeout") that will not affect the data.
In fact in most cases that I have run across ERROR's are more
informational then data affecting.
>
> Cheers,
> Ken
>
>
> --
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-06-29 13:12:25 | Re: PostGreSQL Timeout, auto shutdown and Pkey errors |
Previous Message | Rob Nikander | 2017-06-29 11:09:09 | Re: Is the row version available in SQL? |