| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] createdb default arguments |
| Date: | 2000-02-10 21:51:41 |
| Message-ID: | 38A332ED.15CA6B2B@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This is fixed now, but I don't suppose you want dropdb's default behaviour
> to be along those same lines. I'd have a serious problem with that, even
> though old destroydb used to do that.
Hmm, I think I see a correct answer in the way you phrased the
question :)
You are right, the downside to a default argument for dropdb would
argue strongly for supplying *no* default argument. For "create" kinds
of things, the downside is minimal, and the convenience is high.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-10 22:15:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ECPG documentation |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-10 21:45:53 | Re: [HACKERS] minor bug... |