Re: 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 <robertmhaas@gmail.com
> <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>>:
> 
>     On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule
>     <pavel.stehule@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>> 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
>     > $?
>     >
>     > foo doesn't exists - it creates broken backup due missing "Foo" table
>     >
>     >  [pavel@localhost include]$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_dump -t Foo -t
>     omegaa -s
>     > postgres > /dev/null; echo $?
>     > pg_dump: No matching tables were found
>     > 1
>     >
>     > Is it ok? I am thinking, so it is potentially dangerous. Any
>     explicitly
>     > specified table should to exists.
> 
>     Keep in mind that the argument to -t is a pattern, not just a table
>     name.  I'm not sure how much that affects the calculus here, but it's
>     something to think about.
> 
> 
> yes, it has a sense, although now, I am don't think so it was a good
> idea. There should be some difference between table name and table pattern.

There was a long discussion about this when the feature was introduced
in 7.3(?) IIRC.  Changing it now would break backwards-compatibility, so
you'd really need to introduce a new option.

And, if you introduce a new option which is a specific table name, would
you require a schema name or not?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com