From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |
Date: | 2015-03-19 07:25:38 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDR9UPZFfuDi7zrPuMxiBjv7TOAME-BGokdPdEBeTdX1Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
>
the behave is same - only one real identifier is allowed
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
both your variant has sense for me. We can implement these points
separately. And I see a first point as much more important than second.
Because there is a significant risk of hidden broken backup.
We can implement a some long option with same functionality like now - for
somebody who need backup some explicitly specified tables optionally. Maybe
"--table-if-exists" ??
Is it acceptable for you?
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2015-03-19 11:04:03 | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-03-19 06:59:51 | Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position |