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

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
>>
>
>