Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date
Msg-id 9755.1203526446@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?  (Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>)
Responses Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
List pgsql-performance
Erik Jones <erik@myemma.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

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Erik Jones
Date:
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Next
From: Matthew
Date:
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?