2015-03-15 16:09 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> 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. Initial implementation > in > > attachment. > > I think this design is seriously broken. If I have '-t foo*' the code > should not prevent that from matching multiple tables. What would the use > case for such a restriction be? >
the behave is same - only one real identifier is allowed > > What would make sense to me is one or both of these ideas: > > * require a match for a wildcard-free -t switch > > * require at least one (not "exactly one") match for a wildcarded -t > switch. > > Neither of those is what you wrote, though. > > If we implemented the second one of these, it would have to be controlled > by a new switch, because there are plausible use cases for wildcards that > sometimes don't match anything (not to mention backwards compatibility). > There might be a reasonable argument for the first one being the > default behavior, though; I'm not sure if we could get away with that > from a compatibility perspective. > both your variant has sense for me. We can implement these points separately. And I see a first point as much more important than second. Because there is a significant risk of hidden broken backup. We can implement a some long option with same functionality like now - for somebody who need backup some explicitly specified tables optionally. Maybe "--table-if-exists" ?? Is it acceptable for you? Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane >
