Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

From: Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date: 2008-02-20 17:11:46
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0802201710150.20402@aragorn.flymine.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, 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
>
> PGOPTIONS=whatever
> 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.

It's even better than that. I don't see an "export" there, so it won't
take effect at all!

Matthew

--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Jones 2008-02-20 17:31:32 Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-02-20 16:54:06 Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?