Re: dropdb --force
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: dropdb --force |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRBeTYDzOBx7H8eOY=SCgL3VL9xk2k8+66HzW5PKHYiPZw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: dropdb --force (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
čt 26. 9. 2019 v 17:35 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
On 2019-Sep-26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Alternative is DROP DATABASE [IF EXISTS] name [ CASCADE | RESTRICT ] [ WITH
> FORCE ]
>
> but in this case WIDTH keyword should not be optional (If I need to solve
> Tom's note). Currently WITH keyword is optional every where, so I think so
> using syntax with required WIDTH keyword is not happy.
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.)
You propose
DROP DATABASE (FORCE) [IF EXISTS] name
which seems weird to me -- I think only legacy syntax uses that form.
I have not strong opinion about it, little bit prefer option list after DROP DATABASE, because it is some what I know from EXPLAIN ANALYZE daily work, but it is not too important. Your proposed syntax is ok.
Second patch implements Alvaro's proposed syntax.
Pavel
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: