| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
| Date: | 2010-11-30 19:24:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4CF54F84.8020100@cs.helsinki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-11-30 19:37:13 | Re: profiling connection overhead |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-30 19:20:00 | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |