Thanks Tushar for the testing. On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 at 13:53, tushar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 11:56 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> We have another thread for this. We have patches also. Last year, we >> planned to block these databases at creation time. >> >> > >> > It's probably harmless, we connect to the databases further down to do >> > actual work. But it's also not nice. The toc.glo seems to have a bunch of >> > extraneous entries of type COMMENT and CONNECT. Why is that? As far as >> > poible this should have output pretty much identical to a plain >> > pg_dumpall. >> > >> > >> > cheer >> > >> > >> > andrew >>
Thanks Andrew for the feedback. In the attached patch, I fixed some comments. In the next version, I will try to make it much identical to a plain pg_dumpall. >> If we don't dump those comments in non-text format, then the output of >> "pg_restore -f filename dump_non_text" will not be the same as the >> plain dump of pg_dumpall. >> >> Here, I am attaching an updated patch for the review and testing. >> > > Hi Mahendra, > > I found a scenario in which the table is not restored if --transaction-size > switch is used at the time of pg_restore operation > > Please refer this scenario: > Case A --pg_restore operation with "--transaction-size" against the dump > (taken using pg_dump) - > create a table ( create table t(n int); ) > perform pg_dump ( ./pg_dump -Ft postgres -f xyz.tar) > create a database (create database test;) > perform pg_restore using switch "--transaction-size" ( ./pg_restore > --transaction-size=1 -d test xyz.tar) > table is restored into test database > > Case B --pg_restore operation with "--transaction-size" against the dump > (taken using pg_dumpall) - > create a table ( create table t(n int); ) > perform pg_dumpall ( ./pg_dumpall -Ft -f abc.tar) > create a new cluster, start the server against a different port > perform pg_restore using switch "--transaction-size" (./pg_restore -Ft > --transaction-size=10 -d postgres abc.tar -p 9000 -C) > table is not restored > > if i remove --transaction-size switch then this works. > > regards, > Fixed. On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 at 13:39, tushar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 11:56 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> Here, I am attaching an updated patch for the review and testing. >> >> Note: some of the review comments are still not fixed. I am working on >> those and will post an updated patch. >> > Hi Mahendra, > Please refer this scenario - if we are using with "--jobs" switch then > getting an error at the time of restore > > Create a table ( create table t(n int); insert into t values (1); ) > Perform pg_dumpall ( ./pg_dumpall -Fd -f abc1.dr ) > Create a new cluster, start the server against a different port > Perform pg_restore using switch "--jobs 4 " (./pg_restore -j 4 -d postgres > abc1.dr/ -p 9000 -C ) > > " > [edb@1a1c15437e7c bin]$ ./pg_restore -j 4 -d postgres abc1.dr/ -p 9000 -C > pg_restore: error: could not execute query: ERROR: role "edb" already exists > Command was: CREATE ROLE edb; > ALTER ROLE edb WITH SUPERUSER INHERIT CREATEROLE CREATEDB LOGIN REPLICATION > BYPASSRLS; > > > pg_restore: error: could not execute query: ERROR: syntax error at or near > "\" > LINE 1: \connect template1 > ^ > Command was: \connect template1 > > > > pg_restore: error: could not execute query: ERROR: syntax error at or near > "\" > LINE 1: \connect postgres > ^ > Command was: \connect postgres > > > > pg_restore: warning: errors ignored on restore: 3 > [edb@1a1c15437e7c bin]$ > " > > regards, Fixed this syntax error but user error is still there for parallel mode(for non-parallel, fixed). This will be fixed in the next version. Here, I am attaching an updated patch for the review and testing. -- Thanks and Regards Mahendra Singh Thalor EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v14_17012026-Non-text-modes-for-pg_dumpall-correspondingly-change.patch
Description: Binary data
