2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule <[email protected]> > 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. Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
