From: | salah jubeh <s_jubeh(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add force option to dropdb |
Date: | 2014-01-16 15:56:36 |
Message-ID: | 1389887796.25922.YahooMailNeo@web122202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>If the user owns objects, that will prevent this from working also. I
>have the feeling that adding DROP OWNED BY and/or REASSIGNED OWNED BY
>calls to this utility would be a bit excessive, but who knows.
Please find attached the first attempt to drop drop the client connections.
I have added an option -k, --kill instead of force since killing client connection does not guarantee -drop force-.
Regards
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
salah jubeh wrote:
> For the sake of completeness:
> 1. I think also, I need also to temporary disallow conecting to the database, is that right?
> 2. Is there other factors can hinder dropping database?
If the user owns objects, that will prevent this from working also. I
have the feeling that adding DROP OWNED BY and/or REASSIGNED OWNED BY
calls to this utility would be a bit excessive, but who knows.
> 3. Should I write two patches one for pg_version>=9.2 and one for pg_version<9.2
No point -- nothing gets applied to branches older than current
development anyway.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
dropdb.patch | text/x-patch | 3.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-16 15:56:58 | Re: WAL Rate Limiting |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-01-16 15:56:08 | Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it |