| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> |
| 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 16:54:06 |
| Message-ID: | 9755.1203526446@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew | 2008-02-20 17:11:46 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
| Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2008-02-20 16:27:32 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |