| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dumpall reccomendation in release notes |
| Date: | 2014-02-26 00:42:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20140226004256.GC28999@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:41:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure what "many limitations" you think pg_dumpall has that pg_dump
> doesn't.
>
> I do think that it might be time to reword this to recommend pg_upgrade
> first, though. ISTM that the current wording dates from when pg_upgrade
> could charitably be described as experimental.
Wow, so pg_upgrade takes the lead! And from Tom too! :-)
I agree with Tom that mentioning pg_dump/restore is going to lead to
global object data loss, and throwing the users to a URL with no
explaination isn't going to help either. What we could do is to
restructure the existing text and add a link to the upgrade URL for more
details.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-02-26 00:59:11 | Re: extension_control_path |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-26 00:36:04 | In which good intentions are punished, take 2 |