2015-05-22 18:34 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> writes: > > I think this is a bit over-engineered (apart from the fact that > > processSQLNamePattern is also used in two dozen of places in > > psql/describe.c and all of them must be touched for this patch to > > compile). > > > Also, the new --table-if-exists options seems to be doing what the old > > --table did, and I'm not really sure I underestand what --table does > > now. > > I'm pretty sure we had agreed *not* to change the default behavior of -t. > > > I propose instead to add a separate new option --strict-include, without > > argument, that only controls the behavior when an include pattern didn't > > find any table (or schema). > > If we do it as a separate option, then it necessarily changes the behavior > for *each* -t switch in the call. Can anyone show a common use-case where > that's no good, and you need separate behavior for each of several -t > switches? If not, I like the simplicity of this approach. (Perhaps the > switch name could use some bikeshedding, though.) >
it is near to one proposal implement only new long option "--required-table" Pavel > > regards, tom lane >
