On 06/29/2017 12:05 AM, Ken Tanzer 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 <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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?
If you are using -l to pg_restore then you are also doing
--exit-on-error. In the case you showed(ERROR: unrecognized
configuration parameter "lock_timeout") that will not affect the data.
In fact in most cases that I have run across ERROR's are more
informational then data affecting.
Cheers,
Ken
--
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
