On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Ken Tanzer <ken.tan...@gmail.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 <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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
