Hi Zike, I agree that using regex to delete topics is a good approach, and I also support the idea of letting users confirm the topics they're about to delete. However, there's a concern that this might introduce a breaking change, as users may have already used `pulsar-admin topics delete` in their scripts.
To address this concern, we can introduce a new option flag (e.g., `--regex` or `--pattern`) to the existing `pulsar-admin topics delete` command, which will be specifically used for regex-based deletion. This way, the default behavior of the command remains the same and won't affect existing users' scripts, while the new functionality is introduced for those who want to use regex for deletion. An example of how the updated command could look like: ``` pulsar-admin topics delete --regex "public/default/test-topic-\d+" ``` Please let me know what you think about this solution. Best regards, Xiangying On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 4:36 PM Zike Yang <z...@apache.org> wrote: > Is it possible to use regex to delete namespaces/topics here? > For instance, we can use the following command to delete all topics in > the default namespace: > ``` > pulsar-admin topics delete public/default/* > ``` > We can also use it to delete some specific topics: > ``` > pulsar-admin topics delete public/default/*topic > ``` > This way, we don't need to introduce a new command > `delete-all-topics`. It also makes it easier for users to delete > specific topic lists. > > > Part-1: Give a summary print of the namespaces, and topics to delete, > > and ask the user to confirm if they want to delete the resources. > > Part-2: If users select “yes”, the deletion will be really executed. > > Part-3: Print a summary of the results > > +1 for this. This will minimize the risk of accidentally deleting > important resources. > > BR, > Zike Yang > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 3:34 PM Yubiao Feng > <yubiao.f...@streamnative.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Just wondering - since it is such a dangerous > > > command, how can we help the user not make > > > an accidental mass deletion? > > > > Just a suggestion: We can make this command executed on two-part > > > > Part-1: Give a summary print of the namespaces, and topics to delete, > > and ask the user to confirm if they want to delete the resources. > > > > Part-2: If users select “yes”, the deletion will be really executed. > > > > Part-3: Print a summary of the results > > > > > > Thanks > > Yubiao Feng > > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 9:45 PM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > How about "truncate" instead of "clear"? > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >
