From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |
Date: | 2015-03-13 17:01:43 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC2M_TiQamwCf1wHVdopJ90AU7d3SfXYVSu=7qNhF_CZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > we found possible bug in pg_dump. It raise a error only when all
> specified
> > tables doesn't exists. When it find any table, then ignore missing other.
> >
> > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_dump -t Foo -t omega -s postgres > /dev/null;
> echo
> > $?
> >
> > foo doesn't exists - it creates broken backup due missing "Foo" table
> >
> > [pavel(at)localhost include]$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_dump -t Foo -t
> omegaa -s
> > postgres > /dev/null; echo $?
> > pg_dump: No matching tables were found
> > 1
> >
> > Is it ok? I am thinking, so it is potentially dangerous. Any explicitly
> > specified table should to exists.
>
> Keep in mind that the argument to -t is a pattern, not just a table
> name. I'm not sure how much that affects the calculus here, but it's
> something to think about.
>
yes, it has a sense, although now, I am don't think so it was a good idea.
There should be some difference between table name and table pattern.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Arthur Silva | 2015-03-13 17:20:34 | Paper from IBM: Memory-Efficient Hash Joins |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-13 16:39:02 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |