Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
Date
Msg-id 55BA0015.2010703@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
List pgsql-hackers
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.

For symmetry, it would be good to also support this option in 
pg_restore. It seems even more useful there.

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.

- Heikki




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: We need to support ForeignRecheck for late row locking, don't we?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort"