Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
