Horton

Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>

View thread
From: Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, "Douglas J Hunley" <doug@hunley.homeip.net>, "Jeff" <threshar@threshar.is-a-geek.com>, "Richard Huxton" <dev@archonet.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Date: 2008-02-20T17:31:32Z
Lists: pgsql-performance 
On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:54 AM, 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.

Yes.

Erik Jones

DBA | Emma®
erik@myemma.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