| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alastair Turner | 2010-11-30 20:26:11 | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2010-11-30 20:15:55 | Re: Instrument checkpoint sync calls |