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

Hi

I am sending updated version

news:

* strict-names everywhere
* checking table names in pg_dump simplified - not necessary to create
single query
* pg_restore support

Regards

Pavel

2015-08-13 9:17 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> Hi
>
> 2015-07-30 12:44 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>:
>
>> On 07/25/2015 07:08 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>> I am sending a new patch - without checking wildcard chars.
>>>
>>
>> The documentation says the option is called --strict-names, while the
>> code has --strict-mode. I like --strict-names more, "mode" seems redundant,
>> and it's not clear what it's strict about.
>>
>
> ok
>
>>
>> For symmetry, it would be good to also support this option in pg_restore.
>> It seems even more useful there.
>>
>
> I'll do it
>
>>
>> Can we do better than issuing a separate query for each table/schema
>> name? The performance of this isn't very important, but still it seems like
>> you could fairly easily refactor the code to avoid that. Perhaps return an
>> extra constant for part of the UNION to distinguish which result row came
>> from which pattern, and check that at least one row is returned for each.
>>
>
> I did few tests and for 1K tables the union is faster about 50ms, but the
> code is much more complex, for 10K tables, the union is significantly
> slower (probably due planning) 2sec x 7sec. So if we are expecting backup
> on not too slow network, then simple solution is winner - Postgres process
> simple read queries quickly.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>>
>> - Heikki
>>
>>
>