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

2015-05-22 18:34 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> writes:
> > 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).
>
> > 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'm pretty sure we had agreed *not* to change the default behavior of -t.
>
> > 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).
>
> If we do it as a separate option, then it necessarily changes the behavior
> for *each* -t switch in the call. Can anyone show a common use-case where
> that's no good, and you need separate behavior for each of several -t
> switches? If not, I like the simplicity of this approach. (Perhaps the
> switch name could use some bikeshedding, though.)
>

it is near to one proposal

implement only new long option "--required-table"

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>