Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shul...@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.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
