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

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

>
>
> 2015-05-22 18:30 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr <
> oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> If I understand it raise a error when it found more than one table
>

I hope not, and that totally was not my intent :-p

It should raise if it found *less than* one, that is: none.