Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

From: Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Douglas J Hunley" <doug(at)hunley(dot)homeip(dot)net>, "Jeff" <threshar(at)threshar(dot)is-a-geek(dot)com>, "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date: 2008-02-20 17:31:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
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
> 	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.


Erik Jones

DBA | Emma®
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-02-20 18:04:47
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Previous:From: MatthewDate: 2008-02-20 17:11:46
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group