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

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

Pavel

>
> --
> Alex
>
>