pgsql: Check existency of table/schema for -t/-n option (pg_dump/pg_res
Check existency of table/schema for -t/-n option (pg_dump/pg_restore)
Patch provides command line option --strict-names which requires that at
least one table/schema should present for each -t/-n option.
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/d02426029b133ee2bbe492a038642359bce3c527
Modified Files
--------------
doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_dump.sgml | 17 ++++++++
doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_restore.sgml | 10 +++++
src/bin/pg_dump/dumputils.c | 17 ++++++++
src/bin/pg_dump/dumputils.h | 4 ++
src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup.h | 1 +
src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++
src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c | 5 +++
8 files changed, 157 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> wrote:
Check existency of table/schema for -t/-n option (pg_dump/pg_restore)
Patch provides command line option --strict-names which requires that at
least one table/schema should present for each -t/-n option.Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
/*
- * We use UNION ALL rather than UNION; this might sometimes result in
- * duplicate entries in the OID list, but we don't care.
+ * this might sometimes result in duplicate entries in the OID list,
+ * but we don't care.
*/This looks totally incoherent. You've removed the thing to which the
word "this" referred and replaced it with nothing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
/* - * We use UNION ALL rather than UNION; this might sometimes result in - * duplicate entries in the OID list, but we don't care. + * this might sometimes result in duplicate entries in the OID list, + * but we don't care. */This looks totally incoherent. You've removed the thing to which the
word "this" referred and replaced it with nothing.
Oops.
/*
* The loop below runs multiple SELECTs might sometimes result in
* duplicate entries in the OID list, but we don't care.
*/
looks reasonable?
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> wrote:
/* - * We use UNION ALL rather than UNION; this might sometimes result in - * duplicate entries in the OID list, but we don't care. + * this might sometimes result in duplicate entries in the OID list, + * but we don't care. */This looks totally incoherent. You've removed the thing to which the
word "this" referred and replaced it with nothing.Oops.
/*
* The loop below runs multiple SELECTs might sometimes result in
* duplicate entries in the OID list, but we don't care.
*/looks reasonable?
Sure, that seems fine.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers