On 03/13/2015 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com > <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>>: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule > <pavel.stehule@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>> wrote: > > we found possible bug in pg_dump. It raise a error only when all > specified > > tables doesn't exists. When it find any table, then ignore missing > other. > > > > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_dump -t Foo -t omega -s postgres > > /dev/null; echo > > $? > > > > foo doesn't exists - it creates broken backup due missing "Foo" table > > > > [pavel@localhost include]$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_dump -t Foo -t > omegaa -s > > postgres > /dev/null; echo $? > > pg_dump: No matching tables were found > > 1 > > > > Is it ok? I am thinking, so it is potentially dangerous. Any > explicitly > > specified table should to exists. > > Keep in mind that the argument to -t is a pattern, not just a table > name. I'm not sure how much that affects the calculus here, but it's > something to think about. > > > yes, it has a sense, although now, I am don't think so it was a good > idea. There should be some difference between table name and table pattern.
There was a long discussion about this when the feature was introduced in 7.3(?) IIRC. Changing it now would break backwards-compatibility, so you'd really need to introduce a new option.
And, if you introduce a new option which is a specific table name, would you require a schema name or not?
We can use a same rules like we use for STRICT clause somewhere. There should be only one table specified by the option. If it is not necessary, then only name is enough, else qualified name is necessary.
what is a name for this option? Maybe only with long name - some like 'required-table' ?
