Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>
> 2015-03-23 17:11 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> 2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>
>>> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.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).
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).
Please see attached patch.
--
Alex
