> `delete-all-namespaces` and `delete-all-topics` I support these terms as well. Regarding the concern about CLI usability, bash completion could help a lot.
Additional questions: 1. What permission level is required for each action? 2. How will system topics be treated? Thanks, Michael On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:59 AM Xiangying Meng <xiangy...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Penghui, > > I appreciate your feedback and completely agree with your concern about the > learning curve for Pulsar users. Introducing additional keywords could > potentially increase the complexity for users who need to understand the > new terms. Therefore, I accept your suggestion to use delete-all-namespaces > and delete-all-topics for the proposed improvement. > > Thank you for sharing your insights, and I look forward to working on this > enhancement with the community's support. > > Best regards, > Xiangying > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 3:24 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > The new operation will delete all the data and the metadata under > > a tenant or namespace. I would like to suggest to use > > > > `delete-all-namespaces` and `delete-all-topics` > > > > The `delete` actually acts as a fact of deleting metadata and data. > > And `truncate` is for deleting the data. IMO, we'd better not > > introduce another new keyword, either `clear` or `wipe`, because > > it will bring more knowledge to Pulsar users who must understand. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Penghui > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:56 AM Xiangying Meng <xiangy...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Enrico, > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. While I understand that > > > "delete-all-namespaces" is more explicit, > > > I also think it's a bit lengthy for a command-line parameter. > > > I personally believe the "wipe" option, combined with a safety > > confirmation > > > step, > > > would be more user-friendly and efficient. > > > > > > By adding a safety confirmation step, we can minimize the risk of > > > accidental mass deletion. > > > Users would be required to confirm their intention to perform the > > deletion > > > by > > > typing 'YES' or a similar confirmation word before the operation > > proceeds. > > > > > > What do you think about this approach? > > > If there's a consensus, I can work on implementing this feature with the > > > "wipe" option and the safety confirmation step. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Xiangying > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 11:25 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Il Dom 16 Apr 2023, 15:45 Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> ha > > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > How about "truncate" instead of "clear"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truncate is better, or maybe 'wipe' (because truncate means another > > > > operation for topics currently) > > > > > > > > Another alternative, more explicit: > > > > pulsar-admin tenants delete-all-namespaces TENANT > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wondering - since it is such a dangerous command, how can we > > help > > > > the > > > > > user not make an accidental mass deletion? > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 1:12 PM Girish Sharma < > > scrapmachi...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the current goal is to keep the tenant and namespace > > > intact > > > > > > while > > > > > > > cleaning up their contents. > > > > > > Ah, I see now. Yes, in that case a clear command is better. Will > > this > > > > > > command also take into account the value of the broker config > > > > > > `forceDeleteNamespaceAllowed` in case someone is clearing the owner > > > > > tenant? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 3:39 PM Enrico Olivelli < > > eolive...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposal sounds really useful, especially for automated > > > testing. > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno sab 15 apr 2023 alle ore 12:07 Xiangying Meng > > > > > > > <xiangy...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Girish, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your response and suggestion to extend the use of > > > the > > > > > > > > `boolean force` flag for namespaces and tenants. > > > > > > > > I understand that the `force` flag is already implemented for > > > > > deleting > > > > > > > > topics, namespaces, and tenants, > > > > > > > > and it provides a consistent way to perform these actions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the current goal is to keep the tenant and namespace > > > > intact > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > cleaning up their contents. > > > > > > > > In other words, I want to have a way to remove all topics > > within > > > a > > > > > > > > namespace or all namespaces and topics > > > > > > > > within a tenant without actually deleting the namespace or > > tenant > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To achieve this goal, I proposed adding a `clear` command for > > > > > > > `namespaces` > > > > > > > > and `tenants`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This approach would allow users to keep the tenant and > > namespace > > > > > > > structures > > > > > > > > in place > > > > > > > > while cleaning up their contents. > > > > > > > > I hope this clarifies my intention, and I would like to hear > > your > > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > on this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Xiangying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 5:49 PM Girish Sharma < > > > > > scrapmachi...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Xiangying, > > > > > > > > > This indeed is a cumbersome task to delete a filled namespace > > > or > > > > > > > tenant. We > > > > > > > > > face this challenge in our organization where we use the > > > > > > multi-tenancy > > > > > > > > > feature of pulsar heavily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to suggest a different command to do this > > though.. > > > > > > > Similar to > > > > > > > > > how you cannot delete a topic without deleting its > > > > > > > > > subscribers/producers/consumers, unless we use the `boolean > > > > force` > > > > > > > flag. > > > > > > > > > Why not extend this to namespace and tenant as well and let > > the > > > > > force > > > > > > > param > > > > > > > > > do the cleanup (which your suggested `clear` command would > > do). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of today, using force to delete a namespace just returns > > 405 > > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > > broker doesn't allow force delete of namespace containing > > > topics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 3:07 PM Xiangying Meng < > > > > > xiangy...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Apache Pulsar Community, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this email finds you well.I am writing to suggest a > > > > > > potential > > > > > > > > > > improvement to the Pulsar-admin tool, > > > > > > > > > > which I believe could simplify the process of cleaning up > > > > > tenants > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > namespaces in Apache Pulsar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, cleaning up all the namespaces and topics > > within a > > > > > > tenant > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > cleaning up all the topics within a namespace requires > > > several > > > > > > manual > > > > > > > > > > steps, > > > > > > > > > > such as listing the namespaces, listing the topics, and > > then > > > > > > deleting > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > topic individually. > > > > > > > > > > This process can be time-consuming and error-prone for > > users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To address this issue, I propose the addition of a "clear" > > > > > > parameter > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Pulsar-admin tool, > > > > > > > > > > which would automate the cleanup process for tenants and > > > > > > namespaces. > > > > > > > > > Here's > > > > > > > > > > a conceptual implementation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. To clean up all namespaces and topics within a tenant: > > > > > > > > > > ``` bash > > > > > > > > > > pulsar-admin tenants clear <tenant-name> > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > 2. To clean up all topics within a namespace: > > > > > > > > > > ```bash > > > > > > > > > > pulsar-admin namespaces clear > > <tenant-name>/<namespace-name> > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By implementing these new parameters, users would be able > > to > > > > > > perform > > > > > > > > > > cleanup operations more efficiently and with fewer manual > > > > steps. > > > > > > > > > > I believe this improvement would greatly enhance the user > > > > > > experience > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > working with Apache Pulsar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to discuss the feasibility of this suggestion and > > > > gather > > > > > > > > > feedback > > > > > > > > > > from the community. > > > > > > > > > > If everyone agrees, I can work on implementing this feature > > > and > > > > > > > submit a > > > > > > > > > > pull request for review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Xiangying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Girish Sharma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Girish Sharma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
