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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: dropdb --force
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LuH2GcREcB2VDecp1bbyDh53M43nxZ8X2cg=mArOsd5Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dropdb --force  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: dropdb --force  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Re: dropdb --force  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:15 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Attached patch has the fixes for the above comments.
>

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.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "k.jamison@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
Next
From: Artur Zakirov
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL