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

2015-05-21 16:48 GMT+02:00 Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >
> > 2015-03-23 17:11 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> attached initial implementation
> >>
> >
> > updated version - same mechanism should be used for schema
>
> Hello,
>
> 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.

Regards

Pavel

>
> Please see attached patch.
>
> --
> Alex
>
>