From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Backup strategy |
Date: | 2024-02-28 18:22:14 |
Message-ID: | CANzqJaAauOmkQd7uxTSN+GpnkeK38Zgu6MtN3M8+EBfxX4kruQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:23 AM David Barron <david(dot)barron(at)zencos(dot)com>
wrote:
> Good day all
>
>
>
> I’m responsible for a couple of databases that have constraints and
> indexes on most, if not all, of the tables, which means that the tables
> have to be backed up and restored in the correct order to take the
> constraints into account. But pg_dump and pg_restore don’t take that into
> account, so when doing restores I was running into errors. Hopefully that
> is clear.
>
Clear, but, like Tom said, makes little sense.
Why? *Lots* of databases (including ours) have scads of foreign key
constraints and triggers. If pg_restore didn't "take that into account",
people would have been hollering about that 20 years ago.
pg_restore works perfectly *every time* I restore the whole database.
Thus... show a verbose whole database pg_dump and pg_restore, with error
messages.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Siraj G | 2024-02-29 01:06:26 | Need help - Unable to grant a role |
Previous Message | David Barron | 2024-02-28 16:53:35 | RE: Backup strategy |