Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > [blah] > > fixed Moved to next CF 2015-09. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi 2015-08-22 0:09 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby : > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, failed > Spec compliant: not tested > Documentation:not tested > > The feature d

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested The feature doesn't seem to work: pg_dump -t t -t 'ii*' --strict-name

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi I am sending updated version news: * strict-names everywhere * checking table names in pg_dump simplified - not necessary to create single query * pg_restore support Regards Pavel 2015-08-13 9:17 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hi > > 2015-07-30 12:44 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas : > >> On 0

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi 2015-07-30 12:44 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas : > On 07/25/2015 07:08 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> I am sending a new patch - without checking wildcard chars. >> > > The documentation says the option is called --strict-names, while the code > has --strict-mode. I like --strict-names more, "mo

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On 07/25/2015 07:08 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I am sending a new patch - without checking wildcard chars. The documentation says the option is called --strict-names, while the code has --strict-mode. I like --strict-names more, "mode" seems redundant, and it's not clear what it's strict about.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi I am sending a new patch - without checking wildcard chars. Regards Pavel 2015-07-23 7:22 GMT+02:00 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI : > Hello, > > > > 2015-07-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > >> I am sending updated version. It implements new long option > > >> "--strict-names". If this option is u

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Sorry for the bogus on bogus. At Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:22:59 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote in <20150723.142259.200902861.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Hello, > > > > 2015-07-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > >> I am sending updated version. It implements new long

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hello, > > 2015-07-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> I am sending updated version. It implements new long option > >> "--strict-names". If this option is used, then for any entered name > >> (without any wildcard char) must be found least one object. This option has > >> not impact on patter

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-07-19 21:08 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2015-07-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> Hi >> >> I am sending updated version. It implements new long option >> "--strict-names". If this option is used, then for any entered name >> (without any wildcard char) must be found least one object

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-07-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hi > > I am sending updated version. It implements new long option > "--strict-names". If this option is used, then for any entered name > (without any wildcard char) must be found least one object. This option has > not impact on patters (has wildcards

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi I am sending updated version. It implements new long option "--strict-names". If this option is used, then for any entered name (without any wildcard char) must be found least one object. This option has not impact on patters (has wildcards chars). When this option is not used, then behave is 1

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-07-08 5:36 GMT+02:00 Fujii Masao : > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > > > > > 2015-05-22 18:34 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > >> > >> Oleksandr Shulgin writes: > >> > I think this is a bit over-engineered (apart from the fact that > >> > processSQLNamePattern is also used

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-05-22 18:34 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : >> >> Oleksandr Shulgin 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Oleksandr Shulgin 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). >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-05-22 18:34 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Oleksandr Shulgin 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, th

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-05-22 18:35 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr : > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Pavel Stehule > 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 >>> wrote: >>> 2015-05-21 16:48

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Pavel Stehule 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 >> wrote: >> >>> >>> 2015-05-21 16:48 GMT+02:00 Oleksandr Shulgin < >>> oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Oleksandr Shulgin 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 wh

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-05-22 18:30 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr : > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Pavel Stehule > 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2015-05-21 16:48 GMT+02:00 Oleksandr Shulgin >: > >> >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-05-21 16:48 GMT+02:00 Oleksandr Shulgin : > Pavel Stehule writes: > > > > 2015-03-23 17:11 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > >> Hi > >> > >> 2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > >> > >>> Pavel Stehule writes: > >>> > other variant, I hope better than previous. We can introduce new long > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Pavel Stehule writes: > > 2015-03-23 17:11 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> Hi >> >> 2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : >> >>> Pavel Stehule writes: >>> > other variant, I hope better than previous. We can introduce new long >>> > option "--strict". With this active option, every pattern specifi

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-03-23 17:11 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hi > > 2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > >> Pavel Stehule writes: >> > other variant, I hope better than previous. We can introduce new long >> > option "--strict". With this active option, every pattern specified by >> -t >> > option have to hav

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi 2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: > > other variant, I hope better than previous. We can introduce new long > > option "--strict". With this active option, every pattern specified by -t > > option have to have identifies exactly only one table. It can be used for >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: > > other variant, I hope better than previous. We can introduce new long > > option "--strict". With this active option, every pattern specified by -t > > option have to have identifies exactly only one table. It can be used for > > a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Pavel Stehule writes: > other variant, I hope better than previous. We can introduce new long > option "--strict". With this active option, every pattern specified by -t > option have to have identifies exactly only one table. It can be used for > any other "should to exists" patterns - schemas. I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-03-14 19:33 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2015-03-13 23:43 GMT+01:00 Josh Berkus : > >> On 03/13/2015 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas > > >: >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule >> >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-03-13 23:43 GMT+01:00 Josh Berkus : > On 03/13/2015 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > > 2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas > >: > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule > > mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > we fo

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On 03/13/2015 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas >: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule > mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > we found possible bug in pg_dump. It raise a error only when a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas : > >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> > we found possible bug in pg_dump. It raise a error only when all >> specified >> > tables doesn't exists. When it find any tab

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas : > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule > 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 -

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule 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 > $? > > fo

[HACKERS] pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?

Hi 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" ta