Re: Add force option to dropdb

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:01 PM, salah jubeh <s_jubeh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Sawada,
>
>>- This patch is not patched to master branch
> Sorry, My mistake
>>//new connections are not allowed
> Corrected.
>
> I hope now the patch in better state, if somthing left, I will be glad to
> fix it
> Regards
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 4:17 AM, Sawada Masahiko
> <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014年1月17日 0:56, salah jubeh <s_jubeh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If the user owns objects, that will prevent this from working also.  I
>>>have the feeling that adding DROP OWNED BY and/or REASSIGNED OWNED BY
>>>calls to this utility would be a bit excessive, but who knows.
>>
>> Please find attached the first attempt to drop drop the client
>> connections.
>> I have added an option -k, --kill instead of force since killing client
>> connection does not guarantee -drop force-.
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> salah jubeh wrote:
>>
>>> For the sake of completeness:
>>> 1. I think also, I need also to temporary disallow conecting to the
>>> database, is that right?
>>> 2. Is there other factors can hinder dropping database?
>>
>> If the user owns objects, that will prevent this from working also.  I
>> have the feeling that adding DROP OWNED BY and/or REASSIGNED OWNED BY
>> calls to this utility would be a bit excessive, but who knows.
>>
>>
>>> 3. Should I write two patches one for pg_version>=9.2 and one for
>>> pg_version<9.2
>>
>>
>> No point -- nothing gets applied to branches older than current
>> development anyway.
>>
>
> Thank you for the patch.
> And sorry for delay in reviewing.
>
> I started to look this patch, So the following is first review comment.
>
> - This patch is not patched to master branch
> I tried to patch this patch file to master branch, but I got following
> error.
> $ cd postgresql
> $ patch -d. -p1 < ../dropdb.patch
> can't find fiel to patch at input line 3
> Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
> the text leading up to this was:
> ------------------------------
> |--- dropdb_org.c 2014-01-16
> |+++ dropdb.c 2014-01-16
> ------------------------------
>
> There is not dropdb_org.c. I think  that you made mistake when the
> patch is created.
>
> - This patch is not according the coding rule
> For example, line 71 of the patch:
> //new connections are not allowed
> It should be:
> /* new connections are not allowed */
> (Comment blocks that need specific line breaks should be formatted as
> block comments, where the comment starts as /*------.)
> Please refer to coding rule.
> <http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#What.27s_the_formatting_style_used_in_PostgreSQL_source_code.3F>
>
>

Thank you for updating patch!

It did not works fine with following case.

---
$ createdb -U postgres hoge
$ psql -d hoge -U postgres
hoge=# create table test (col text);
hoge=# insert into test select repeat(chr(code),10000) from
generate_series(1,100000) code;

<Execute dropdb -k while the client is inserting many tuples into database>
$ dropdb -k hoge
2014-01-29 23:10:49 JST FATAL:  terminating connection due to
administrator command
2014-01-29 23:10:49 JST STATEMENT:  insert into test select
repeat(chr(code),10000) from generate_series(1,2000000) code;
2014-01-29 23:10:54 JST ERROR:  database "hoge" is being accessed by other users
2014-01-29 23:10:54 JST DETAIL:  There is 1 other session using the database.
2014-01-29 23:10:54 JST STATEMENT:  DROP DATABASE hoge;

2014-01-29 23:10:54 JST ERROR:  syntax error at or near ""hoge"" at character 41
2014-01-29 23:10:54 JST STATEMENT:  UPDATE pg_database SET
datconnlimit = e "hoge" is being accessed by other users WHERE
datname= 'hoge';
dropdb: database removal failed: ERROR:  syntax error at or near ""hoge""
LINE 1: UPDATE pg_database SET datconnlimit = e "hoge" is being acce...                                               ^
hoge=# \l                            List of databases  Name    |  Owner   | Encoding | Collate | Ctype |   Access
privileges
-----------+----------+----------+---------+-------+-----------------------hoge      | postgres | UTF8     | C       |
C    |postgres  | postgres | UTF8     | C       | C     |template0 | postgres | UTF8     | C       | C     |
=c/postgres         +          |          |          |         |       | postgres=CTc/postgrestemplate1 | postgres |
UTF8    | C       | C     | =c/postgres          +          |          |          |         |       |
postgres=CTc/postgres

hoge database is not dropped yet.
Is this the bug? or not?


Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko