Re: 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Record the errors, and look through them to decide if they are important
> or not.
>
>
I'd still rather have the data be correct, or not at all. It also greatly
increases the chances someone will notice it, and let me know about it.

> But better yet, use v9.2 of pg_dump to dump things out of a 9.2 server
> which you want to load to another 9.2 server. Don't be at the mercy of
> your $PATH.
>
>
Yep, that's the direction I went.

> (Or even more better yet, upgrade the servers from 9.2 to 9.6, and then
> use 9.6's pg_dump)
>
>
On the todo list. I don't imagine though that I'm the only one who would
install a newer version of PG, do some testing, and then upgrade DBs to the
newer version, and possibly not do it all immediately and at once.

I think it's great and impressive that you can install and run two versions
simultaneously, but I have found a couple gotchas in the process. Maybe
those are documented somewhere, but if so I haven't seen it. The issues I
hit all had fairly easy solutions, but I'd humbly suggest that a "things to
watch out for when running multiple versions of Postgres concurrently"
might be a useful document.

Cheers,
Ken

--
AGENCY Software
A Free Software data system
By and for non-profits
*http://agency-software.org/ <http://agency-software.org/>*
*https://agency-software.org/demo/client
<https://agency-software.org/demo/client>*
ken(dot)tanzer(at)agency-software(dot)org
(253) 245-3801

Subscribe to the mailing list
<agency-general-request(at)lists(dot)sourceforge(dot)net?body=subscribe> to
learn more about AGENCY or
follow the discussion.