Re: Upgrading doc does not mention pg_restore at all

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

> Folks:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html
>
> ... no mention of pg_restore of any kind. Is there any reason why
> someone (maybe me) *shouldn't* rewrite this to include pg_restore?
>

I can't see any reason - it definitely should mention it.

Frankly, I think recommending psql to restore is a bad idea ...
>

Yes. And recommending pg_dumpall > sqlfile, but that goes hand in hand with
that.

It also says that the least-downtime way is to use pg_dumpall in a pipe to
psql. That's clearly not correct, since it does not support parallel
restore (or parallel dump).

In short, +1 for you to write a patch that changes that.

It could probably deserve a better descirption of pg_upgrade as well, and
an outline of the differences. Right now we spend the majority of the page
on pg_dump, and then just say "oh, with pg_upgrade it only takes minutes"...

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/