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. > 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).
If we do it as a separate option, then it necessarily changes the behavior for *each* -t switch in the call. Can anyone show a common use-case where that's no good, and you need separate behavior for each of several -t switches? If not, I like the simplicity of this approach. (Perhaps the switch name could use some bikeshedding, though.)