Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRC2M_TiQamwCf1wHVdopJ90AU7d3SfXYVSu=7qNhF_CZQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2015-03-13 17:39 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
Keep in mind that the argument to -t is a pattern, not just a tableOn 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.
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.
Regards
Pavel
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: