On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Jones <erik@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx
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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
