Horton

Re: dropdb --force

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Ryan Lambert <ryan@rustprooflabs.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Anthony Nowocien <anowocien@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>
Date: 2019-09-26T17:39:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
čt 26. 9. 2019 v 18:34 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:

> On 2019-09-26 17:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Well, you would have one of those:
> >
> > DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name WITH (FORCE)
> > DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name
> >
> > Naturally, the WITH is optional in the sense that the clause itself is
> > optional.  (Note we don't have CASCADE/RESTRICT in DROP DATABASE.)
>
> The WITH here seems weird to me.  Why not leave it out?
>

it is just my subjective opinion so it looks better with it than without
it.

so there are three variants

DROP DATABASE ( FORCE) name;
DROP DATABASE name (FORCE)
DROP DATABASE name WITH (FORCE)

It is true so in this case it is just syntactic sugar

Maybe

DROP DATABASE name [[ WITH ] OPTIONS( FORCE ) ] ?

It looks well for me

DROP DATABASE test WITH OPTIONS (FORCE)
DROP DATABASE test OPTIONS (FORCE)

?


> --
> Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>

Commits

  1. Add tests for '-f' option in dropdb utility.

  2. Move pump_until to TestLib.pm.

  3. Add the support for '-f' option in dropdb utility.

  4. Introduce the 'force' option for the Drop Database command.

  5. Improve CREATE/DROP/RENAME DATABASE so that when failing because the source