Horton

Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>
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: 2008-02-20T16:54:06Z
Lists: 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