Re: dropdb --force

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)