From: | Shaheed Haque <shaheedhaque(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
Cc: | Laura Smith <n5d9xq3ti233xiyif2vp(at)protonmail(dot)ch>, postgre <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Scriptable way to validate a pg_dump restore ? |
Date: | 2024-01-29 18:12:17 |
Message-ID: | CAHAc2jefssD1twugPeGJUnnonYMwhTNEbH=PMerh1sX6MtBwqw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, 23:57 Adrian Klaver, <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
> On 1/29/24 09:28, Shaheed Haque wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Right, for me, state, not just record count is what I'm interested in
> > (for the initial full table copy part of replication). So, given the
> > explanation about the possible per-table window, is there some property
> > of the table that could be used to confirm that a table has made it
> across?
> >
> > I guess there is such a thing since the following incremental syncing
> > would presumably need it. I had hoped the LSN was this thing, but
> > confirmation would be great.
>
> The OP was referring to the pg_dump/pg_restore cycle, you seem to be
> referring to logical replication. Is that correct?
>
Yes. But I was under the impression that the initial copy of logical
replication was the same?
> >
> > Thanks, Shaheed
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks !
> > >
> > > Laura
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Adrian Klaver
> > adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bob Jolliffe | 2024-01-29 18:21:05 | Re: Query performance in 9.6.24 vs 14.10 |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-01-29 17:57:00 | Re: Scriptable way to validate a pg_dump restore ? |