From: Jens Z. <wei...@gm...> - 2005-02-28 18:05:29
|
Olivier Mascia wrote: > >> I wish that gbak -r[eplace_database] would be replaced by gbak >> -d[estroy_database], as it is too easy for inattentive new users to >> destroy databases by associating gbak -r with "restore" and thinking >> healthy thoughts about it. > > > Why wouldn't this horrible switch be dropped, simply ? > Who can't afford to remove the database file(s) before restoring if > what they want is actually restoring by replacing the database ? No, please don't simply drop this switch. Some guys out there know what they are doing, and sometimes they indeed want to replace the database ;-) We need the replace functionality to replace the temporary difference-update-database for our database update procedure. This works very fine to many systems by one script on the providing server. If we have to delete the old databases manually before restoring them, then we have to implement this on every client server. Not impossible but inconvenient. But renaming the switch or add a confirmation switch -yes-i-really-want-to-do-this is no problem. cu Jens |