On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2015-05-22 18:30 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr < > oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>: > >> 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. >> > > If I understand it raise a error when it found more than one table > I hope not, and that totally was not my intent :-p It should raise if it found *less than* one, that is: none.
