Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Daniel Loureiro <daniel(at)termasa(dot)com(dot)br>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <ncslists(at)googlemail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)
Date: 2010-11-30 20:16:57
Message-ID: 201011302116.58066.andres@anarazel.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday 30 November 2010 20:24:52 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> > On 11/30/2010 02:12 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Daniel Loureiro<daniel(at)termasa(dot)com(dot)br>   wrote:
> >>> to me the key its security - its a anti-DBA-with-lack-of-attention
> >>> feature.
> >> 
> >> Well, it seems pretty weak to me for that purpose.  You still trash
> >> data, and you don't have any immediate clue as to what.
> > 
> > I agree, that argument is completely misconceived. If the DBA is paying
> > enough attention to use LIMIT, s/he should be paying enough attention
> > not to do damage in the first place. If that were the only argument in
> > its favor I'd be completely against the feature.
> 
> I don't buy the argument either; why would you put a LIMIT there and
> delete one row by accident when you could put a BEGIN; in front and not
> do any damage at all?
Because the delete of the whole table may take awfully long?

Andres

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alastair TurnerDate: 2010-11-30 20:26:11
Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)
Previous:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2010-11-30 20:15:55
Subject: Re: Instrument checkpoint sync calls

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group