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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: dropdb --force
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAGFYfcp_q4BTTi=G15OdH+HxY-ur3n8xkzV4oF8tOc1g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dropdb --force  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


čt 26. 9. 2019 v 18:34 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
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?

it is just my subjective opinion so it looks better with it than without it.

so there are three variants

DROP DATABASE ( FORCE) name;
DROP DATABASE name (FORCE)
DROP DATABASE name WITH (FORCE)

It is true so in this case it is just syntactic sugar

Maybe

DROP DATABASE name [[ WITH ] OPTIONS( FORCE ) ] ?

It looks well for me

DROP DATABASE test WITH OPTIONS (FORCE)
DROP DATABASE test OPTIONS (FORCE)

?


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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
Date:
Subject: Re: Fetching timeline during recovery
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: Standby accepts recovery_target_timeline setting?