I still don't understand why the OP is getting into so much trouble and doesn't upgrade to a newer version like 9.3 or 9.4 (or even 9.5). All this hassle to stay on an unsupported postgres is just useless, IMNSHO. Regards, El 28/05/16 a las 12:26, Francisco Olarte escribió: > Jeff: > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Jeff Baldwin <tarheeljeff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Thank you for your time Alan. > .. >> To move the DB, you are suggesting something like this: >> pg_dump -h dbms11 -U postgres -C mls11 | psql -h localhost -d mls11 -U >> postgres > > I'd like to point one thing, you MAY get a little more speed if you > run pg_dump AND psql each in the same host as the DB it's operating on > to minimize latency ( and I would time unix socket vs network first in > case it differs ). ( to do that I would try something like 'ssh dbms11 > "pg_dump mls11 " | psql -d mls11' with all the needed doodahs, and > maybe use something like netcat or socat instead of ssh ). The > rationale being the intermediate dump is just a data stream and not > latency sensitive ( except for the window*latency problem, but you are > not going to hit that on a LAN ), while the dump/restore does DB work > which is more latency sensitive ( I do not know how many RTTs it would > need, specially with blobs, but you can try it ). > > ¿ How many hours does it take in your tests? Because if you have 1-2 > and you can do the dump psql pipe trick, which is quite robust, in 3-4 > you may push for it ( arguing it's a simpler an more testable process > ). > > Francisco Olarte. > > -- Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
