Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobP+KSFwNY36L1-y6e3uyBwnDRt39Z8S59EwXjfynzZkA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Stehule <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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: