Re: dropdb --force - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: dropdb --force
Date
Msg-id 20191129063041.GL2505@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dropdb --force  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: dropdb --force  (Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo.santamaria@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:53:56AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have pushed the refactoring patch.  In the second patch, I have a
> few more comments.  I am not completely sure if it is a good idea to
> write a new test file 060_dropdb_force.pl when we already have an
> existing file 050_dropdb.pl for dropdb tests, but I think if we want
> to do that, then lets move existing test for dropdb '-f' from
> 050_dropdb.pl to new file and it might be better to name new file as
> 051_dropdb_force.pl.  I see that in some other cases like vacuumdb and
> clusterdb, we have separate test files to cover a different kinds of
> scenarios, so it should be okay to have a new file for dropdb tests.

Amit, as most of the patch set has been committed, would it make sense
to mark this entry as committed in the CF app?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId forpg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view?
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance