3 ms·

> eventual removal To me, the idea that the deletion takes time to complete doesn't negate the idea that the data will be gone once the process completes. WAL

> eventual removal To me, the idea that the deletion takes time to complete doesn't negate the idea that the data will be gone once the process completes. WAL archive and backups are external systems. You could argue that nothing supports deletion because an external backup could exist, but that's not a useful conversation.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago
Going back to the point of the the thread, we agree the deleted data is not erased. The user is unable to access it through normal mechanisms, but the existence of side channels that could reveal it does not negate the idea that it has truly been “deleted”, especially when one looks at the historical context surrounding that word.
- 8organicbits 2y ago
  What? I don't agree with that. Can you point to an example of a modern database that "supports deletion" but keeps the data around forever? Maybe I've just used different tools than you. Knowing modern data retention concerns I'd be surprised if such a thing existed.
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    Who said anything about that? We’re talking about side channels and eventual^TM deletion. Given enough time no information will remain anywhere, sure. But that’s not very relevant.
    - 8organicbits 2y ago
      I think we are trying to define the word "delete". You found an archaic definition and are trying to use it in a modern technical setting. You've claimed that modern databases delete without actually removing data but haven't pointed to which systems you are talking about. I'm familiar with tombstoning, either as a "soft-delete" or as part of an eventual deletion process. But I've never seen that called deletion as that would be very confusing. Pointing to which database you are talking about should clear this up quickly. I don't think it's reasonable to talk about backups here. A backup is external to the database so it inherently cannot delete it. Similar to how a piece of paper cannot destroy a photograph of the paper, but burning the paper destroys it.
      - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        I used the first definition of delete I found which, while arguably “archaic”, matches the modern technical term almost exactly. We’d typically call that a well known word with a clear meaning. And sure, the DELETE FROM statement in postgres - or any other standards compliment sql db I know.
        8organicbits 2y ago
        In technical writing you often don't want to use the dictionary for definitions, similar to how words in a contract can have unexpected meaning in a legal setting. For Postgres you've got to consider vacuum. Auto vacuum is enabled by default. Deleted rows are removed unless you go out of your way to make it do something different.

dumbo-octopus 2y ago

Going back to the point of the the thread, we agree the deleted data is not erased. The user is unable to access it through normal mechanisms, but the existence of side channels that could reveal it does not negate the idea that it has truly been “deleted”, especially when one looks at the historical context surrounding that word.

8organicbits 2y ago
What? I don't agree with that. Can you point to an example of a modern database that "supports deletion" but keeps the data around forever? Maybe I've just used different tools than you. Knowing modern data retention concerns I'd be surprised if such a thing existed.
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  Who said anything about that? We’re talking about side channels and eventual^TM deletion. Given enough time no information will remain anywhere, sure. But that’s not very relevant.
  - 8organicbits 2y ago
    I think we are trying to define the word "delete". You found an archaic definition and are trying to use it in a modern technical setting. You've claimed that modern databases delete without actually removing data but haven't pointed to which systems you are talking about. I'm familiar with tombstoning, either as a "soft-delete" or as part of an eventual deletion process. But I've never seen that called deletion as that would be very confusing. Pointing to which database you are talking about should clear this up quickly. I don't think it's reasonable to talk about backups here. A backup is external to the database so it inherently cannot delete it. Similar to how a piece of paper cannot destroy a photograph of the paper, but burning the paper destroys it.
    - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
      I used the first definition of delete I found which, while arguably “archaic”, matches the modern technical term almost exactly. We’d typically call that a well known word with a clear meaning. And sure, the DELETE FROM statement in postgres - or any other standards compliment sql db I know.
      - 8organicbits 2y ago
        In technical writing you often don't want to use the dictionary for definitions, similar to how words in a contract can have unexpected meaning in a legal setting. For Postgres you've got to consider vacuum. Auto vacuum is enabled by default. Deleted rows are removed unless you go out of your way to make it do something different.