On 02/05/17 15:10, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Petr Jelinek >>> <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> DROP SUBSCRIPTION mysub NODROP SLOT; > >>> I'm pretty uninspired by this choice of syntax. > > Actually, this command has got much worse problems than whether you like > the spelling of its option: it shouldn't have an option in the first > place. I put it to you as an inviolable rule that no object DROP command > should ever have any options other than RESTRICT/CASCADE and IF EXISTS. > If it does, then you don't know what to do when the object is recursed > to by a cascaded drop. > > It's possible that we could allow exceptions to this rule for object types > that can never have any dependencies. But a subscription doesn't qualify > --- it's got an owner, so DROP OWNED BY already poses this problem. Looks > to me like it's got a dependency on a database, too. (BTW, if > subscriptions are per-database, why is pg_subscription a shared catalog? > There were some pretty schizophrenic decisions here.)
Because otherwise we would need launcher process per database, not pretty. > > So ISTM we need to get rid of the above-depicted syntax. We could instead > have what-to-do-with-the-slot as a property of the subscription, > established at CREATE SUBSCRIPTION and possibly changed later by ALTER > SUBSCRIPTION. Not quite sure what to call the option, maybe something > based on the concept of the subscription "owning" the slot. > So what do you do if the upstream does not exist anymore when you are dropping subscription? -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
