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
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? |