2015-05-22 18:35 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> :
> 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. > ok, then I have not objection
