Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053F42E0090
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:57:36 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 25299-01-5
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:57:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADE12E00D8
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:56:52 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1KGs6tX009756;
	Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:54:06 -0500 (EST)
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
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? 
In-reply-to: <0C5E3C24-530F-40AD-8CB4-B0477A368F6E@myemma.com> 
References: <200802191303.58840.doug@hunley.homeip.net>
	<200802191555.43340.doug@hunley.homeip.net>
	<080DA59E-2C02-4370-8584-FA7C8CC008B0@myemma.com>
	<200802200826.38611.doug@hunley.homeip.net>
	<874pc3ww96.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<0C5E3C24-530F-40AD-8CB4-B0477A368F6E@myemma.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>
	message dated "Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:27:32 -0600"
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:54:06 -0500
Message-ID: <9755.1203526446@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200802/250
X-Sequence-Number: 28792

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