From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: dropdb --force |
Date: | 2018-12-18 15:33:58 |
Message-ID: | CABRT9RD=QQExSQztrz5-ZSCxG96RjffL8_1v+K2ouqe=ahao+A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
> út 18. 12. 2018 v 16:11 odesílatel Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> napsal:
>> Please share opinions if this makes sense at all, and has any chance
>> going upstream.
Clearly since Pavel has another implementation of the same concept,
there is some interest in this feature. :)
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:20 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Still one my customer use a patch that implement FORCE on SQL level. It is necessary under higher load when is not easy to synchronize clients.
I think Filip's approach of setting pg_database.datallowconn='false'
is pretty clever to avoid the synchronization problem. But it's also a
good idea to expose this functionality via DROP DATABASE in SQL, like
Pavel's patch, not just the 'dropdb' binary.
If this is to be accepted into PostgreSQL core, I think the two
approaches should be combined on the server side.
Regards,
Marti Raudsepp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-18 16:12:37 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2018-12-18 15:25:54 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |