Обсуждение: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
The Hermit Hacker
Дата:
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > I am including a patch for destroydb to ask for confirmation before
> > deleting databases (after I accidentally deleted mine)...destroydb -y
> > would force delete without any confirmation.
>
> Uh, "destroydb" would seem to be a specific-enough command that if you
> type it, you actually wanted to delete a database :)
>
> Would have preferred that the behavior remained as-is, myself.

    Its too simple to backout (I love CVS *grin*)...anyone else have an
opinion one way or the other?  Its sort of like some systems alias rm -i to
rm...just in case


Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

------------------------------

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
Igor
Дата:
Well, rm is also a specific command, yet it's still a good idea to allow
for confirmations...Effects of destroydb are rather permanent ...
The reason I wanted to add this cause I intended to type destroyuser
but accidentally typed destroydb....*sigh* at least I have a backup...
Well...you can still do destroydb -y to force it...maybe building an
environment variable (something like PGFORCEDESTROY or something) would be
ok too...

=+=------------------------/\---------------------------------=+=
       Igor Natanzon      |**|   E-mail: igor@sba.miami.edu
=+=------------------------\/---------------------------------=+=

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > I am including a patch for destroydb to ask for confirmation before
> > deleting databases (after I accidentally deleted mine)...destroydb -y
> > would force delete without any confirmation.
>
> Uh, "destroydb" would seem to be a specific-enough command that if you
> type it, you actually wanted to delete a database :)
>
> Would have preferred that the behavior remained as-is, myself.
>
>             - Tom
>

------------------------------

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
"Thomas G. Lockhart"
Дата:
How about "destroydb -i" a la "rm -i" to allow someone to alias the
definition to protect themselves without changing the default behavior
for everyone? (Rather than "destroydb -y" to suppress the confirmation
message?)

            - Tom

------------------------------

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
The Hermit Hacker
Дата:
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

> How about "destroydb -i" a la "rm -i" to allow someone to alias the
> definition to protect themselves without changing the default behavior
> for everyone? (Rather than "destroydb -y" to suppress the confirmation
> message?)

    Sounds great to me...Igor?

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

------------------------------

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
Igor
Дата:
I guess that's fine..I only patched this up in frustration...
If people will agree with destroydb -i to be interactive one, I'll change
it...

=+=------------------------/\---------------------------------=+=
       Igor Natanzon      |**|   E-mail: igor@sba.miami.edu
=+=------------------------\/---------------------------------=+=

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:

> How about "destroydb -i" a la "rm -i" to allow someone to alias the
> definition to protect themselves without changing the default behavior
> for everyone? (Rather than "destroydb -y" to suppress the confirmation
> message?)
>
>             - Tom
>

------------------------------

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
Igor
Дата:
Yea..sounds cool..I'll repatch it today...

=+=------------------------/\---------------------------------=+=
       Igor Natanzon      |**|   E-mail: igor@sba.miami.edu
=+=------------------------\/---------------------------------=+=

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
>
> > How about "destroydb -i" a la "rm -i" to allow someone to alias the
> > definition to protect themselves without changing the default behavior
> > for everyone? (Rather than "destroydb -y" to suppress the confirmation
> > message?)
>
>     Sounds great to me...Igor?
>
> Marc G. Fournier
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
>

------------------------------

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > I am including a patch for destroydb to ask for confirmation before
> > deleting databases (after I accidentally deleted mine)...destroydb -y
> > would force delete without any confirmation.
>
> Uh, "destroydb" would seem to be a specific-enough command that if you
> type it, you actually wanted to delete a database :)
>
> Would have preferred that the behavior remained as-is, myself.

I agree with this, if we are voting.

- --
Bruce Momjian
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us

------------------------------

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'postgres95/src/bin/destroydb destroydb.sh'

От
Ross Johnson
Дата:
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > I am including a patch for destroydb to ask for confirmation before
> > > deleting databases (after I accidentally deleted mine)...destroydb -y
> > > would force delete without any confirmation.
> >
> > Uh, "destroydb" would seem to be a specific-enough command that if you
> > type it, you actually wanted to delete a database :)
> >
> > Would have preferred that the behavior remained as-is, myself.
>
>     Its too simple to backout (I love CVS *grin*)...anyone else have an
> opinion one way or the other?  Its sort of like some systems alias rm -i to
> rm...just in case

Having had to restore entire systems because someone typed "rm -r abc *"
instead of "rm -r abc*", I'd put the confirmation in. IE. it's not that
you didn't mean to type "destroydb", but whether you get the database name
correct or not. How often does someone destroy a database anyway that a
confirmation makes it more of a pain?

Why not provide a command line flag to override confirmation for those
who might call destroydb from a script.

+----------------------+---+
| Ross Johnson         |   | E-Mail: rpj@ise.canberra.edu.au
| Info Sciences and Eng|___|
| University of Canberra   | FAX:    +61 6 2015227
| PO Box 1                 |
| Belconnen  ACT    2616   | WWW:    http://willow.canberra.edu.au/~rpj/
| AUSTRALIA                |
+--------------------------+

------------------------------