Re: [HACKERS] Review: check existency of table for -t option (pg_dump) when pattern...
2015-09-14 12:05 GMT+02:00 Teodor Sigaev : > (new version in attach), but patch shows some inconsistent output: >> % pg_dump -t 'aaa*' postgres >> pg_dump: No matching tables were found >> % pg_dump -t 'aaa*' --strict-names postgres >> pg_dump: Table "aaa*" not found. >> > > There are two different situation - first message says "there are not any >> table >> for work", second says "There are not specific table(s) with specific >> names >> (mask)". I am thinking so this information is enough interesting for >> showing. >> > Agree, but "aaa*" is not a table > > >> Can be changed to "No matching table(s) were found for filter "aaa*" " ? >> > > "TBL" is not a filter. May be: > > No matching table(s) were found for pattern "aaa*" ? > No matching table(s) were found for pattern "TBL" ? +1 it is better Pavel > > > -- > Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru >WWW: > http://www.sigaev.ru/ >
Re: [HACKERS] Review: check existency of table for -t option (pg_dump) when pattern...
Hi 2015-09-11 17:59 GMT+02:00 Teodor Sigaev : > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/6/201/ > > Patch looks good and is helpful in some usecases. I found and fix some > typo (new version in attach), but patch shows some inconsistent output: > % pg_dump -t 'aaa*' postgres > pg_dump: No matching tables were found > % pg_dump -t 'aaa*' --strict-names postgres > pg_dump: Table "aaa*" not found. > > In second case error message is obviously worse. > There are two different situation - first message says "there are not any table for work", second says "There are not specific table(s) with specific names (mask)". I am thinking so this information is enough interesting for showing. Can be changed to "No matching table(s) were found for filter "aaa*" " ? Regards Pavel > -- > Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru >WWW: > http://www.sigaev.ru/ >
