Re: 9.6 parameters messing up my 9.2 pg_dump/pg_restore

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Ken Tanzer <ken(dot)tanzer(at)gmail(dot)com> 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> 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?
>

Record the errors, and look through them to decide if they are important or
not.

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.

(Or even more better yet, upgrade the servers from 9.2 to 9.6, and then use
9.6's pg_dump)

Cheers,

Jeff