Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Petr Jelinek
> <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Ok, Let me be clear, I actually happen to agree with your proposal. The
>> reason I am moaning is that I always seem to find myself doing tons of
>> mechanical work to rewrite some cosmetic aspect of some patch based on
>> which committer is paying attention in a specific week. So while I am
>> for doing exactly what you proposed, I'd like to see couple of +1s first
>> (Peter?) since I don't want to rewrite it to something different again
>> and it's also long past freeze.

> So, Tom Lane and Thom Brown and Josh Drake all seemed generally in
> favor of cleaning this up. Perhaps they could opine on this
> particular proposal.

It seems like there's some remaining indecision between "make it look
like the options in EXPLAIN, VACUUM, etc" and "make it look like the
WITH options found in some other statements". I do not have a strong
opinion which one to do, but I'd definitely say that you should use WITH
in the latter case but not in the former. I think this mostly boils down
to whether to use "=" or not; you've got "not" in the proposal, which
means you are following the EXPLAIN precedent and should not use WITH.

I'm okay with the other specifics mentioned.

regards, tom lane