Re: dropdb --force

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anthony Nowocien <anowocien(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: dropdb --force
Date: 2019-09-26 16:34:49
Message-ID: d659cb43-9c08-4921-cb74-84252f5348f6@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message legrand legrand 2019-09-26 16:57:57 Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-09-26 16:24:22 Re: PostgreSQL12 and older versions of OpenSSL