On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:38:04AM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> > Maybe it's clearer to write this with =ANY() / != ALL() ?
> > See 002.
>
> I have applied your changes and produced a new version v3 of the patch,
> thanks for the improvements. The patch have been added to commitfest
> interface, see here https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3587/
I wondered whether my patches were improvements, and it occurred to me that
your patch didn't fail if the specified schema didn't exist. That's arguably
preferable, but that's the pre-existing behavior for tables. So I think the
behavior of my patch is more consistent.
$ ./src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb -h /tmp -d postgres --table foo
vacuumdb: vacuuming database "postgres"
2022-03-09 15:04:06.922 CST client backend[25540] vacuumdb ERROR: relation "foo" does not exist at character 60
$ ./src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb -h /tmp -d postgres --schema foo
vacuumdb: vacuuming database "postgres"
2022-03-09 15:02:59.926 CST client backend[23516] vacuumdb ERROR: schema "foo" does not exist at character 335
