From: | Daniel Loureiro <daniel(at)termasa(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Csaba Nagy <ncslists(at)googlemail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
Date: | 2010-11-30 16:33:07 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik2AKm5aqRcLNmE7D7O=tHF-B01HiaSnz0ATW_=@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
to me the key its security - its a anti-DBA-with-lack-of-attention feature.
If i forget the "WHERE" statement, I will delete some valid tuples and
messed up the bd, but its less-than-worst that exclude all the table. A DBA
who never forgot an "WHERE" in an "DELETE" is not an DBA. Just kidding, but
this happens often enough.
is there another option to implement this ? Its possible to be done by
plugins/extension (in a Firefox browser style) ?
Sds,
--
Daniel Loureiro
------------------------------
2010/11/30 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
>
>
> On 11/30/2010 09:57 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote:
>
>
> So it is really an ideological thing and not lack of demand or
> implementation attempts... I for myself can't write working C code
> anyway, so I got my peace with the workaround - I wish you good luck
> arguing Tom :-)
>
>
>
>
> We need a convincing use case for it. So far the only one that's seemed at
> all convincing to me is the one about deleting in batches. But that might be
> enough.
>
> As for it being illogical, I don't think it's any more so than
>
> DELETE FROM foo WHERE random() < 0.1;
>
> and you can do that today.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-30 16:33:18 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-30 16:30:53 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |