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?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alastair Turner||Date: 2010-11-30 20:26:11|
|Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Janes||Date: 2010-11-30 20:15:55|
|Subject: Re: Instrument checkpoint sync calls|