From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
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: | 2015-03-15 15:09:38 |
Message-ID: | 24985.1426432178@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-03-15 15:21:47 | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-15 14:16:52 | Re: recovery_target_action = pause & hot_standby = off |