Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
От | Matthew |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0802201710150.20402@aragorn.flymine.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: