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

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

>
> 2015-05-21 16:48 GMT+02:00 Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de
> >:
>
>>
>> I think this is a bit over-engineered (apart from the fact that
>> processSQLNamePattern is also used in two dozen of places in
>> psql/describe.c and all of them must be touched for this patch to
>> compile).
>>
>
> it was prototype - I believe so issue with describe.c can be solved better
>
>
>>
>> Also, the new --table-if-exists options seems to be doing what the old
>> --table did, and I'm not really sure I underestand what --table does
>> now.
>>
>> I propose instead to add a separate new option --strict-include, without
>> argument, that only controls the behavior when an include pattern didn't
>> find any table (or schema).
>>
>
> hard to say - any variant has own advantages and disadvantages
>
> But I more to unlike it than like - it is more usual, when you use exact
> name so, you need it exactly one, and when you use some wildcard, so you
> are expecting one or more tables.
>
> This use case is not checked in your patch.
>

Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe it's handled by

pg_dump -t mytables* --strict-include

so that it will error out if nothing was found for mytables* pattern.

--
Alex