| 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: | 83D8982D-762F-4B8C-9F46-6DC14A72FD13@myemma.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
Yes.
Erik Jones
DBA | Emma®
erik(at)myemma(dot)com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-02-20 18:04:47 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
| Previous Message | Matthew | 2008-02-20 17:11:46 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |