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

From Shulgin, Oleksandr
Subject Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
Date
Msg-id CACACo5RVru-GWNgziF7SSwYFsDaYJO=tn=imGFhuc60cfpg4Gw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de> writes:
> 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'm pretty sure we had agreed *not* to change the default behavior of -t.

My patch does that, in the case of no-wildcards -t argument.

However, it can be fixed easily: just drop that strcspn() call, and then default behavior is the same for both wildcard and exact matches, since --strict-include is off by default.

--
Alex

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Generalized JSON output functions