On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 5:39 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Choice 3. Implement some option that has an argument saying what to delete
>>
>> Implement an option that takes some argument saying what objects to remove.
>>
>> Here, the current patch would be something like:
>> "--remove-target-objects=publications". In future, this option could
>> be enhanced to accept other values like
>> "--remove-target-objects=publications,subscriptions" etc.
>
>
> I’m changing my vote to option 3. With a requirement that dropping is done post-recovery by the user via psql - we
justprovide the commands we would have executed in a script.
>
> —prune-file=‘drop-commands.psql’
> —prune=publications
> —prune=subscriptions
> Etc…
>
> I’d rather do multiple specifications than commas separated. It matches what we already do with databases, which was
donethis way I suspect for the same reasons - length of the parameters value when we have:
> Publications
> Slots
> Subscriptions
> Databases
> Roles
> Tablespaces
>
OK. Here are some examples...
style #1:
--prune=Publications --prune=Slots --prune=Subscriptions
--prune=Databases --prune=Tablespaces
versus
style #2:
--prune=Publications,Slots,Subscriptions,Databases,Tablespaces
David, I understand you are saying that you prefer style #2 because of
the potentially cumbersome length of the value part if there are many
future object kinds (e.g.
"Publications,Slots,Subscriptions,Databases,Tablespaces" in the above
examples).
Does anyone else here have any preference about these styles they wish to voice?
> Redefining All over the course of years as we decide to add object types is unappealing. Even if we expect the DBA
tocheck the drop-commands.sql file before executing it. Which I’d still require them to do instead of providing CLI
optionsto specify, e.g., slot names or database names to not drop if they want some subset of All.
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
