On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> writes:
>> On Feb 20, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> I would suggest leaving out the && which only obfuscate what's
>>> going on here.
>>> PGOPTIONS=... pg_restore ...
>>> would work just as well and be clearer about what's going on.
>> Right, that's just an unnecessary habit of mine.
> Isn't that habit outright wrong? ISTM that with the && in there,
> what you're doing is equivalent to
> pg_restore ...
> This syntax will set PGOPTIONS for the remainder of the shell session,
> causing it to also affect (say) a subsequent psql invocation.
> Which is
> exactly not what is wanted.
DBA | Emma®
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2008-02-20 18:04:47|
|Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?|
|Previous:||From: Matthew||Date: 2008-02-20 17:11:46|
|Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |