Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi

2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > other variant, I hope better than previous. We can introduce new long
> > option "--strict". With this active option, every pattern specified by -t
> > option have to have identifies exactly only one table. It can be used for
> > any other "should to exists" patterns - schemas. Initial implementation
> in
> > attachment.
>
> I think this design is seriously broken. If I have '-t foo*' the code
> should not prevent that from matching multiple tables. What would the use
> case for such a restriction be?
>
> What would make sense to me is one or both of these ideas:
>
> * require a match for a wildcard-free -t switch
>
> * require at least one (not "exactly one") match for a wildcarded -t
> switch.
>

attached initial implementation

Regards

Pavel

>
> Neither of those is what you wrote, though.
>
> If we implemented the second one of these, it would have to be controlled
> by a new switch, because there are plausible use cases for wildcards that
> sometimes don't match anything (not to mention backwards compatibility).
> There might be a reasonable argument for the first one being the
> default behavior, though; I'm not sure if we could get away with that
> from a compatibility perspective.
>
> regards, tom lane
>