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

From vignesh C
Subject Re: dropdb --force
Date
Msg-id CALDaNm2zqe5Q0JWkkzJ9hSqVjORd7SANroGv-3dR1E1e=PNNug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dropdb --force  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 8:54 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Thanks for pushing the patch. Please find the attached patch having
the fixes for the comments suggested.

Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [Incident report]Backend process crashed when executing 2pc transaction
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: type info support functions for functions that use"any" type