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

Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.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.)
        regards, tom lane