Hi Penghui, I appreciate your feedback and completely agree with your concern about the learning curve for Pulsar users. Introducing additional keywords could potentially increase the complexity for users who need to understand the new terms. Therefore, I accept your suggestion to use delete-all-namespaces and delete-all-topics for the proposed improvement.
Thank you for sharing your insights, and I look forward to working on this enhancement with the community's support. Best regards, Xiangying On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 3:24 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > The new operation will delete all the data and the metadata under > a tenant or namespace. I would like to suggest to use > > `delete-all-namespaces` and `delete-all-topics` > > The `delete` actually acts as a fact of deleting metadata and data. > And `truncate` is for deleting the data. IMO, we'd better not > introduce another new keyword, either `clear` or `wipe`, because > it will bring more knowledge to Pulsar users who must understand. > > > Thanks, > Penghui > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:56 AM Xiangying Meng <xiangy...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Enrico, > > > > Thank you for your feedback. While I understand that > > "delete-all-namespaces" is more explicit, > > I also think it's a bit lengthy for a command-line parameter. > > I personally believe the "wipe" option, combined with a safety > confirmation > > step, > > would be more user-friendly and efficient. > > > > By adding a safety confirmation step, we can minimize the risk of > > accidental mass deletion. > > Users would be required to confirm their intention to perform the > deletion > > by > > typing 'YES' or a similar confirmation word before the operation > proceeds. > > > > What do you think about this approach? > > If there's a consensus, I can work on implementing this feature with the > > "wipe" option and the safety confirmation step. > > > > Best regards, > > Xiangying > > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 11:25 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Il Dom 16 Apr 2023, 15:45 Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > How about "truncate" instead of "clear"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truncate is better, or maybe 'wipe' (because truncate means another > > > operation for topics currently) > > > > > > Another alternative, more explicit: > > > pulsar-admin tenants delete-all-namespaces TENANT > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > Just wondering - since it is such a dangerous command, how can we > help > > > the > > > > user not make an accidental mass deletion? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 1:12 PM Girish Sharma < > scrapmachi...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > However, the current goal is to keep the tenant and namespace > > intact > > > > > while > > > > > > cleaning up their contents. > > > > > Ah, I see now. Yes, in that case a clear command is better. Will > this > > > > > command also take into account the value of the broker config > > > > > `forceDeleteNamespaceAllowed` in case someone is clearing the owner > > > > tenant? > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 3:39 PM Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The proposal sounds really useful, especially for automated > > testing. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno sab 15 apr 2023 alle ore 12:07 Xiangying Meng > > > > > > <xiangy...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Girish, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your response and suggestion to extend the use of > > the > > > > > > > `boolean force` flag for namespaces and tenants. > > > > > > > I understand that the `force` flag is already implemented for > > > > deleting > > > > > > > topics, namespaces, and tenants, > > > > > > > and it provides a consistent way to perform these actions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the current goal is to keep the tenant and namespace > > > intact > > > > > > while > > > > > > > cleaning up their contents. > > > > > > > In other words, I want to have a way to remove all topics > within > > a > > > > > > > namespace or all namespaces and topics > > > > > > > within a tenant without actually deleting the namespace or > tenant > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To achieve this goal, I proposed adding a `clear` command for > > > > > > `namespaces` > > > > > > > and `tenants`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This approach would allow users to keep the tenant and > namespace > > > > > > structures > > > > > > > in place > > > > > > > while cleaning up their contents. > > > > > > > I hope this clarifies my intention, and I would like to hear > your > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > on this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Xiangying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 5:49 PM Girish Sharma < > > > > scrapmachi...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Xiangying, > > > > > > > > This indeed is a cumbersome task to delete a filled namespace > > or > > > > > > tenant. We > > > > > > > > face this challenge in our organization where we use the > > > > > multi-tenancy > > > > > > > > feature of pulsar heavily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to suggest a different command to do this > though.. > > > > > > Similar to > > > > > > > > how you cannot delete a topic without deleting its > > > > > > > > subscribers/producers/consumers, unless we use the `boolean > > > force` > > > > > > flag. > > > > > > > > Why not extend this to namespace and tenant as well and let > the > > > > force > > > > > > param > > > > > > > > do the cleanup (which your suggested `clear` command would > do). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, using force to delete a namespace just returns > 405 > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > broker doesn't allow force delete of namespace containing > > topics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 3:07 PM Xiangying Meng < > > > > xiangy...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Apache Pulsar Community, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this email finds you well.I am writing to suggest a > > > > > potential > > > > > > > > > improvement to the Pulsar-admin tool, > > > > > > > > > which I believe could simplify the process of cleaning up > > > > tenants > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > namespaces in Apache Pulsar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, cleaning up all the namespaces and topics > within a > > > > > tenant > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > cleaning up all the topics within a namespace requires > > several > > > > > manual > > > > > > > > > steps, > > > > > > > > > such as listing the namespaces, listing the topics, and > then > > > > > deleting > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > topic individually. > > > > > > > > > This process can be time-consuming and error-prone for > users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To address this issue, I propose the addition of a "clear" > > > > > parameter > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Pulsar-admin tool, > > > > > > > > > which would automate the cleanup process for tenants and > > > > > namespaces. > > > > > > > > Here's > > > > > > > > > a conceptual implementation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. To clean up all namespaces and topics within a tenant: > > > > > > > > > ``` bash > > > > > > > > > pulsar-admin tenants clear <tenant-name> > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > 2. To clean up all topics within a namespace: > > > > > > > > > ```bash > > > > > > > > > pulsar-admin namespaces clear > <tenant-name>/<namespace-name> > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By implementing these new parameters, users would be able > to > > > > > perform > > > > > > > > > cleanup operations more efficiently and with fewer manual > > > steps. > > > > > > > > > I believe this improvement would greatly enhance the user > > > > > experience > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > working with Apache Pulsar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to discuss the feasibility of this suggestion and > > > gather > > > > > > > > feedback > > > > > > > > > from the community. > > > > > > > > > If everyone agrees, I can work on implementing this feature > > and > > > > > > submit a > > > > > > > > > pull request for review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > Xiangying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Girish Sharma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Girish Sharma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
