From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anthony Nowocien <anowocien(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: dropdb --force |
Date: | 2019-11-29 06:30:41 |
Message-ID: | 20191129063041.GL2505@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:53:56AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> 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.
Amit, as most of the patch set has been committed, would it make sense
to mark this entry as committed in the CF app?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-11-29 06:34:52 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-29 06:20:58 | Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view? |