On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 8:03 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, March 14, 2025, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Style-1 sounds reasonable to me, but how exactly we want to do. One >> idea is to have short and long switches like -r and >> --remove_exiting_object=publication. The user would be allowed to give >> multiple options like -r publications -r slots, etc. > > > Either “existing” nor “object” are needed, a one-word long form suffices. > Drop, remove, or prune. If we want a short form option we should choose > Remove and use -r; both D and P are already taken. > > So, I marginally prefer —prune with no short-form option; followed by > —remove/-r >
I am inclined towards "--remove/-r" as that will be relatively more straightforward to follow for users. > Communicating the semantic meaning of “prune” in the option name, we aren’t > removing all objects of the given type, tips the balance for me. But that > can just be communicated in the description so it isn’t a strong desire. > BTW, with this option, we will be removing all the publications present on the subscriber because on standby there shouldn't be any more. But that may not be true for other objects, so we must communicate it via the description. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
