Hi
ne 10. 3. 2024 v 15:23 odesílatel Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net>
napsal:
> When including tables with the new pg_dump functionality, it fails to
> error out if a table is missing, but only if more than one table is
> specified.
>
> E.g., if table foo exist, but not bar:
>
> pg_dump --table bar
> pg_dump: error: no matching tables were found
>
> with file "myfilter" containing just "table bar"
> pg_dump --filter myfilter
> pg_dump: error: no matching tables were found
>
> with the file "myfilter" containing both "table foo" and "table bar"
> (order doesn't matter):
> <no error, but dump of course only contains foo>
>
is not this expected behaviour (consistent with -t option)?
(2024-03-10 16:48:07) postgres=# \dt
List of relations
┌────────┬──────┬───────┬───────┐
│ Schema │ Name │ Type │ Owner │
╞════════╪══════╪═══════╪═══════╡
│ public │ foo │ table │ pavel │
└────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┘
(1 row)
pavel@nemesis:~/src/orafce$ /usr/local/pgsql/master/bin/pg_dump -t foo -t
boo > /dev/null
pavel@nemesis:~/src/orafce$
if you want to raise error, you should to use option --strict-names.
pavel@nemesis:~/src/orafce$ /usr/local/pgsql/master/bin/pg_dump -t foo -t
boo --strict-names > /dev/null
pg_dump: error: no matching tables were found for pattern "boo"
Regards
Pavel
>
> Not having looked into the code, but it looks to me like some variable
> isn't properly reset, or perhaps there is a check for existence rather
> than count?
>
> //Magnus
>
