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

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:

2015-05-21 16:48 GMT+02:00 Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.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.

--

Alex