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

From Matthew
Subject Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.64.0802201710150.20402@aragorn.flymine.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

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

pgsql-performance by date:

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