On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:58:18 -0500
From: Andrew Dunstan
To: Tom Lane
Cc: o...@pyrenet.fr, pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore new option -m
Tom Lane wrote:
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp
Tom Lane wrote:
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp
gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time.
You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m?
Yeah, I have reproduced this. It's because we reconnect to the wrong db
in
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:05:32 -0500
From: Tom Lane
To: o...@pyrenet.fr
Cc: pgsql-hackers list
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore new option -m
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
You sure you don't get exactly the
o...@pyrenet.fr wrote:
pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp
gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time.
You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m?
yes!
the pg.gz script shows the output of :
pg_restore -C -m
pg_restore -C
dropdb;createdb; pg_restor
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m?
>>
> yes!
We're going to need to see the test case then.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
o...@pyrenet.fr writes:
> pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp
> gives numerous errors, mostly no such relation at index creation time.
You sure you don't get exactly the same without -m?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq
hi,
i've been testing new -m option of pg_restore with great pleasure.
first, let me thank the developpers, it cut restoring time by half.
is it normal that -m doesn't cope well with -C?
createdb db
pg_restore -m 4 -d db db.dmp
works like a charm while
pg_restore -C -m 4 -d template1 db.dmp
gi
