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

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
>
>