From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |
Date: | 2015-03-24 11:36:19 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAQNB730YqJOdv0uzJHOaAb++_ORH72A6s99Aqsgz+X_w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-03-23 17:11 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 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
>
updated version - same mechanism should be used for schema
Regards
Pavel
>
> 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
>>
>
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_dump-strict-3.patch | text/x-patch | 16.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-24 11:37:32 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-24 11:35:28 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |