On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2015-05-21 16:48 GMT+02:00 Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de > >: > >> >> 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). >> > > it was prototype - I believe so issue with describe.c can be solved better > > >> >> 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). >> > > hard to say - any variant has own advantages and disadvantages > > But I more to unlike it than like - it is more usual, when you use exact > name so, you need it exactly one, and when you use some wildcard, so you > are expecting one or more tables. > > This use case is not checked in your patch. > Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe it's handled by pg_dump -t mytables* --strict-include so that it will error out if nothing was found for mytables* pattern. -- Alex
