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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: dropdb --force
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JKJG3_sTAv=4dLvSEQNjpYZv_UseF+O6PgNPsxeEKrww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dropdb --force  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:04 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Yeah, we can leave it as well.  However, other commands like COPY
seems to be using WITH clause for a somewhat similar purpose.  I think
we use WITH clause in other cases while specifying multiple options.
So to me, using WITH here doesn't sound to be a bad idea.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Add comments for a postgres program in bootstrap mode
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: range test for hash index?