Обсуждение: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)

Hi,<br /><br />frequently i have accidents with DELETE/UPDATE commands. In fact, sometimes in the last 8 or 9 years
(ok,a lot of times) I forget the entire WHERE clause or have a “not so perfectly“ WHERE clause, with an awful suprise.
There’sno words to figure the horror ever time i see that the number of affected rows its not 1 or two how expected,
butthe entire table. So I planned to make a hack to make the “LIMIT” directive available to “DELETE” command.<br /><br
/>So,can anyone help-me in how to do this ? This its my plan: 1) change the lex grammar (wheres the file ?) 2) change
theparser to accept the new grammar 3) change the executor to stop after “n” successful iterations. Is this correct
?<br/><br />Greets,<br />--<br /><br />Daniel Loureiro<br />------------------------------<br /><a
href="http://diffcoder.blogspot.com/">http://diffcoder.blogspot.com/</a><br/> 

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 3) change the executor to stop after “n” successful iterations. Is
> this correct ?
>

no. it means you will delete the n first tuples that happen to be
found, if you don't have a WHERE clause that means is very possible
you delete something you don't want to... the correct solution is to
use always try DELETE's inside transactions and only if you see the
right thing happening issue a COMMIT

besides i think this has been proposed and rejected before

--
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL

good point. But when you use a LIMIT in a SELECT statement you WANT n RANDOM tuples - its wrong to get RANDOM tuples ?
So,in the same logic, its wrong to exclude n random tuples ? Besides, if you want DELETE just 1 tuple, why the executor
haveto scan the entire table, and not just stoping after find the 1 tuple ? Why the LIMIT clause should be used to
speeduponly SELECT statements ? if the programmer know the expected number of affected rows why not use it to speed up
DELETE/UPDATE?<br /><br />cheers,<br />--<br clear="all" />Daniel Loureiro<br /><a
href="http://diffcoder.blogspot.com/">http://diffcoder.blogspot.com/</a><br/><br /><div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/30
JaimeCasanova <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jaime@2ndquadrant.com">jaime@2ndquadrant.com</a>></span><br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Daniel Loureiro <<a
href="mailto:loureirorg@gmail.com">loureirorg@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > 3) change the executor to
stopafter “n” successful iterations. Is<br /> > this correct ?<br /> ><br /><br /></div>no. it means you will
deletethe n first tuples that happen to be<br /> found, if you don't have a WHERE clause that means is very possible<br
/>you delete something you don't want to... the correct solution is to<br /> use always try DELETE's inside
transactionsand only if you see the<br /> right thing happening issue a COMMIT<br /><br /> besides i think this has
beenproposed and rejected before<br /><font color="#888888"><br /> --<br /> Jaime Casanova         <a
href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.com"target="_blank">www.2ndQuadrant.com</a><br /> Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y
capacitaciónde PostgreSQL<br /></font></blockquote></div><br /> 

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg@gmail.com> wrote:
> good point. But when you use a LIMIT in a SELECT statement you WANT n RANDOM
> tuples

no. at least IMHO the only sensible way that LIMIT is usefull is with
an ORDER BY clause with make the results very well defined...

--
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg@gmail.com> wrote:
> frequently i have accidents with DELETE/UPDATE commands. In fact, sometimes
> in the last 8 or 9 years (ok, a lot of times) I forget the entire WHERE
> clause or have a “not so perfectly“ WHERE clause, with an awful suprise.
> There’s no words to figure the horror ever time i see that the number of
> affected rows its not 1 or two how expected, but the entire table. So I
> planned to make a hack to make the “LIMIT” directive available to “DELETE”
> command.
>
> So, can anyone help-me in how to do this ? This its my plan: 1) change the
> lex grammar (wheres the file ?) 2) change the parser to accept the new
> grammar 3) change the executor to stop after “n” successful iterations. Is
> this correct ?

I don't think your use case sounds very compelling - as Jaime says,
you could still easily blow away data that you have no easy way to get
back - but I agree that DELETE (or UPDATE) is useful in combination
with LIMIT.  For example, suppose you want to roll your own
replication solution for a table with no primary key.  So you set up
some triggers.  Whenever you see an INSERT on the source table, you do
a matching INSERT on the target table.  When you see a DELETE on the
source table, you do a DELETE on the target table that constrains all
the columns to be equal and also includes LIMIT 1.  Similarly for
UPDATE.  Then, your boss gives you a big raise and commends you for
your awesome programming skills.  Woot!

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> good point. But when you use a LIMIT in a SELECT statement you WANT n RANDOM
>> tuples
>
> no. at least IMHO the only sensible way that LIMIT is usefull is with
> an ORDER BY clause with make the results very well defined...

That's not 100% true - it can sometimes be very useful when digging
through a database to grab 50 rows from a table just to get a feel for
what kind of stuff in there.  Maybe it's stupid, but I find it handy.
But even granting the premise, that's an argument for making DELETE
support both ORDER BY and LIMIT, not for supporting neither of them.
For example, suppose we're trying to govern an ancient Greek
democracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

DELETE FROM residents_of_athens ORDER BY ostracism_votes DESC LIMIT 1;

I think the executor already pretty much knows how to do this.  The
planner might need some fiddling to hand over the correct
instructions, not sure.  But this might not even be super hard, though
Daniel might want to pick something a little less ambitious for his
very first project, because debugging planner and executor problems is
not so easy.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

<br /><br /> On 11/29/2010 10:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote: <blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinsts6=TQD29J2WhQK37k58_i4jNVGsYn2c7xk5@mail.gmail.com"type="cite"><br /><pre wrap="">For example,
supposewe're trying to govern an ancient Greek
 
democracy:

<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism</a>

DELETE FROM residents_of_athens ORDER BY ostracism_votes DESC LIMIT 1;


</pre></blockquote><br /> I'm not sure this is a very good example. Assuming there isn't a tie, I'd do it like this:<br
/><br/><blockquote>DELETE FROM residents_of_athens <br /> WHERE ostracism_votes >= 6000 <br />    and
ostracism_votes= <br />     (SELECT max(ostracism_votes) <br />      FROM residents_of_athens);<br /></blockquote><br
/><prewrap="">I can't say I'd be excited by this feature. In quite a few years of writing SQL I don't recall ever
wantingsuch a gadget.
 

cheers

andrew


</pre><br />

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2010 10:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> For example, suppose we're trying to govern an ancient Greek
> democracy:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
>
> DELETE FROM residents_of_athens ORDER BY ostracism_votes DESC LIMIT 1;
>
> I'm not sure this is a very good example. Assuming there isn't a tie, I'd do
> it like this:
>
> DELETE FROM residents_of_athens
> WHERE ostracism_votes >= 6000
>    and ostracism_votes =
>     (SELECT max(ostracism_votes)
>      FROM residents_of_athens);

That might be a lot less efficient, though, and sometimes it's not OK
to delete more than one record.  Imagine, for example, wanting to
dequeue the work item with the highest priority.  Sure, you can use
SELECT ... LIMIT to identify one and then DELETE it by some other key,
but DELETE .. ORDER BY .. RETURNING .. LIMIT would be cool, and would
let you do it with just one scan.

> I can't say I'd be excited by this feature. In quite a few years of writing
> SQL I don't recall ever wanting such a gadget.

It's something I've wanted periodically, though not badly enough to do
the work to make it happen.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:09, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> at least IMHO the only sensible way that LIMIT is usefull is with
> an ORDER BY clause with make the results very well defined...

DELETE with LIMIT is also useful for deleting things in batches, so
you can do large deletes on a live system without starving other users
from I/O. In this case deletion order doesn't matter (it's more
efficient to delete rows in physical table order) -- ORDER BY isn't
necessary.

Regards,
Marti

Hi all,

The workaround recommended some time ago by Tom is:

DELETE FROM residents_of_athens WHERE ctid = any(array(SELECT ctid FROM
residents_of_athens ORDER BY ostracism_votes DESC LIMIT 1));

It is about as efficient as the requested feature would be, just uglier
to write down. I use it all the time when batch-deleting something large
(to avoid long running transactions and to not crash slony). It also
helps to vacuum frequently if you do that on large amount of data...

Cheers,
Csaba.

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 00:05 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/29/2010 10:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > For example, suppose we're trying to govern an ancient Greek
> > democracy:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
> >
> > DELETE FROM residents_of_athens ORDER BY ostracism_votes DESC LIMIT 1;
> >
> > I'm not sure this is a very good example. Assuming there isn't a tie, I'd do
> > it like this:
> >
> > DELETE FROM residents_of_athens
> > WHERE ostracism_votes >= 6000
> >    and ostracism_votes =
> >     (SELECT max(ostracism_votes)
> >      FROM residents_of_athens);
> 
> That might be a lot less efficient, though, and sometimes it's not OK
> to delete more than one record.  Imagine, for example, wanting to
> dequeue the work item with the highest priority.  Sure, you can use
> SELECT ... LIMIT to identify one and then DELETE it by some other key,
> but DELETE .. ORDER BY .. RETURNING .. LIMIT would be cool, and would
> let you do it with just one scan.
> 
> > I can't say I'd be excited by this feature. In quite a few years of writing
> > SQL I don't recall ever wanting such a gadget.
> 
> It's something I've wanted periodically, though not badly enough to do
> the work to make it happen.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> 

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:09, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> at least IMHO the only sensible way that LIMIT is usefull is with
>> an ORDER BY clause with make the results very well defined...
>
> DELETE with LIMIT is also useful for deleting things in batches, so
> you can do large deletes on a live system without starving other users
> from I/O. In this case deletion order doesn't matter (it's more
> efficient to delete rows in physical table order) -- ORDER BY isn't
> necessary.
>
> Regards,
> Marti
>

++

I have a lot of DELETE with LIMIT in my (mysql) environment for this reason.


-- 
Rob Wultsch
wultsch@gmail.com

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Csaba Nagy <ncslists@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The workaround recommended some time ago by Tom is:
>
> DELETE FROM residents_of_athens WHERE ctid = any(array(SELECT ctid FROM
> residents_of_athens ORDER BY ostracism_votes DESC LIMIT 1));
>
> It is about as efficient as the requested feature would be, just uglier
> to write down. I use it all the time when batch-deleting something large
> (to avoid long running transactions and to not crash slony). It also
> helps to vacuum frequently if you do that on large amount of data...

That's a very elegant hack, but not exactly obvious to a novice user
or, say, me.  So I think it'd be nicer to have the obvious syntax
work.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> I can't say I'd be excited by this feature. In quite a few years of writing
>> SQL I don't recall ever wanting such a gadget.

> It's something I've wanted periodically, though not badly enough to do
> the work to make it happen.

It would certainly look like nothing but a crude hack if the feature is
only available for DELETE and not UPDATE.  Unfortunately, the UPDATE
case would be an order of magnitude harder (think inheritance trees
where the children aren't all alike).
        regards, tom lane

<br /><br /> On 11/30/2010 09:57 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1291129033.30816.34.camel@pcd12478"
type="cite"><br/><pre wrap="">
 
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 :-)


</pre></blockquote><br /> We need a convincing use case for it. So far the only one that's seemed at all convincing to
meis the one about deleting in batches. But that might be enough.<br /><br /> As for it being illogical, I don't think
it'sany more so than<br /><blockquote>DELETE FROM foo WHERE random() < 0.1;<br /></blockquote> and you can do that
today.<br/><br /> cheers<br /><br /> andrew<br /><br /> 

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> I can't say I'd be excited by this feature. In quite a few years of writing
>>> SQL I don't recall ever wanting such a gadget.
>
>> It's something I've wanted periodically, though not badly enough to do
>> the work to make it happen.
>
> It would certainly look like nothing but a crude hack if the feature is
> only available for DELETE and not UPDATE.

I'm not sure this is true, given Andrew's comment that the bulk
deletion argument is the only one he finds compelling, but I'd surely
be in favor of supporting both.

> Unfortunately, the UPDATE
> case would be an order of magnitude harder (think inheritance trees
> where the children aren't all alike).

I don't understand why there's anything more to this than sticking a
Limit node either immediately above or immediately below the
ModifyTable node.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the UPDATE
>> case would be an order of magnitude harder (think inheritance trees
>> where the children aren't all alike).

> I don't understand why there's anything more to this than sticking a
> Limit node either immediately above or immediately below the
> ModifyTable node.

1. You need to support ORDER BY too, otherwise I *will* be on the
warpath against this as a foot-gun with no redeeming social value.

2. So what you need is Sort underneath Limit underneath ModifyTable.
Putting them above it would be quite the wrong semantics.

3. This doesn't work tremendously well for inheritance trees, where
ModifyTable acts as sort of an implicit Append node.  You can't just
funnel all the tuples through one Sort or Limit node because they aren't
all the same rowtype.  (Limit might perhaps not care, but Sort will.)
But you can't have a separate Sort/Limit for each table either, because
that would give the wrong behavior.  Another problem with funneling all
the rows through one Sort/Limit is that ModifyTable did need to know
which table each row came from, so it can apply the modify to the right
table.

I don't offhand see a solution other than integrating the responsibility
for limit-counting and sorting into ModifyTable itself, making it into
an unholy union of ModifyTable+Limit+MergeAppend (with the individual
inputs required to deliver sorted outputs separately).  That's
sufficiently ugly, and probably bad for performance in the normal case,
that I don't think it's going to be acceptable for such a marginal
feature.

Or I guess you could try to persuade us that DELETE/UPDATE with ORDER BY
or LIMIT doesn't need to support inherited target tables.  I wouldn't
bet on that proposal flying either.
        regards, tom lane

Hi Robert,

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 09:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> That's a very elegant hack, but not exactly obvious to a novice user
> or, say, me.  So I think it'd be nicer to have the obvious syntax
> work.

I fully agree - but you first have to convince core hackers that this is
not just a foot-gun. This was discussed many times in the past, patches
were also offered (perhaps not complete one, but proving that there is
an itch getting scratched):

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2002-09/msg00255.php

The reaction:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2002-09/msg00256.php

There are other discussions too, if I remember correctly Tom once
admitted that the core of implementing the feature would likely consist
in letting it work, as the infrastructure is there to do it but it is
actively disabled. I can't find the mail now though.

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 :-)

Cheers,
Csaba.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, the UPDATE
>>> case would be an order of magnitude harder (think inheritance trees
>>> where the children aren't all alike).
>
>> I don't understand why there's anything more to this than sticking a
>> Limit node either immediately above or immediately below the
>> ModifyTable node.
>
> 1. You need to support ORDER BY too, otherwise I *will* be on the
> warpath against this as a foot-gun with no redeeming social value.

Will you be wielding a Tom-ahawk?

> 2. So what you need is Sort underneath Limit underneath ModifyTable.
> Putting them above it would be quite the wrong semantics.

OK.

> 3. This doesn't work tremendously well for inheritance trees, where
> ModifyTable acts as sort of an implicit Append node.  You can't just
> funnel all the tuples through one Sort or Limit node because they aren't
> all the same rowtype.  (Limit might perhaps not care, but Sort will.)
> But you can't have a separate Sort/Limit for each table either, because
> that would give the wrong behavior.  Another problem with funneling all
> the rows through one Sort/Limit is that ModifyTable did need to know
> which table each row came from, so it can apply the modify to the right
> table.

Could you possibly have ModifyTable -> Limit -> MergeAppend?

> Or I guess you could try to persuade us that DELETE/UPDATE with ORDER BY
> or LIMIT doesn't need to support inherited target tables.  I wouldn't
> bet on that proposal flying either.

I've spent enough time worrying about the fact that tables with
inheritance children don't behave as nicely as those that don't to
have any interest in going in the other direction.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

> 3. This doesn't work tremendously well for inheritance trees, where<br /> > ModifyTable acts as sort of an
implicitAppend node.  You can't just<br /> > funnel all the tuples through one Sort or Limit node because they
aren't<br/> > all the same rowtype.  (Limit might perhaps not care, but Sort will.)<br /> > But you can't have a
separateSort/Limit for each table either, because<br /> > that would give the wrong behavior.  Another problem with
funnelingall<br /> > the rows through one Sort/Limit is that ModifyTable did need to know<br /> > which table
eachrow came from, so it can apply the modify to the right<br /> > table.<br /><br />So I guess that I have choose
thewrong hack to start.<br /><br />Just for curiosity, why the result of "WHERE" filter (in SELECT/DELETE/UPDATE) is
notput in memory, i.e. an array of ctid, like an buffer and then executed by SELECT/DELETE/UPDATE at once ?<br /><br
/>Greets,<br/>--<br />Daniel Loureiro<br /> 

to me the key its security - its a anti-DBA-with-lack-of-attention feature. If i forget the "WHERE" statement, I will
deletesome valid tuples and messed up the bd, but its less-than-worst that exclude all the table. A DBA who never
forgotan "WHERE" in an "DELETE" is not an DBA. Just kidding, but this happens often enough.<br /><br />is there another
optionto implement this ? Its possible to be done by plugins/extension (in a Firefox browser style) ?<br /><br
/>Sds,<br/>--<br clear="all" />Daniel Loureiro<br />------------------------------<br /><br /><div class="gmail_quote">
2010/11/30Andrew Dunstan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew@dunslane.net">andrew@dunslane.net</a>></span><br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im"><br /><br /> On 11/30/2010 09:57 AM, Csaba
Nagywrote: <blockquote type="cite"><br /><pre>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 :-)


</pre></blockquote><br /></div> We need a convincing use case for it. So far the only one that's seemed at all
convincingto me is the one about deleting in batches. But that might be enough.<br /><br /> As for it being illogical,
Idon't think it's any more so than<br /><blockquote>DELETE FROM foo WHERE random() < 0.1;<br /></blockquote> and you
cando that today.<br /><br /> cheers<br /><br /> andrew<br /><br /></div></blockquote></div><br /> 

Daniel Loureiro <daniel@termasa.com.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.  If you
wanted protection from that you'd want more of an "assert limit"
that would fail if the affected row count was above what you
specified.
For me the best solution is to develop good habits.  I first type my
statement as "SELECT * FROM ..." and after reviewing the results
arrow up and replace "SELECT *" with "DELETE".  If there's enough
volatility or complexity to make that insufficient insurance, I
begin a transaction.  That way I can not only review row counts but
run queries against the modified data to confirm correct
modification before issuing a COMMIT (or ROLLBACK).
The batching of updates so that vacuums can make space available for
re-use is more compelling to me, but still pretty iffy, since the
work-arounds aren't that hard to find.
-Kevin

On 11/30/2010 02:12 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Daniel Loureiro<daniel@termasa.com.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.

cheers

andrew

> On 11/30/2010 02:12 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Daniel Loureiro<daniel@termasa.com.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

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 11:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 3. This doesn't work tremendously well for inheritance trees, where
> > ModifyTable acts as sort of an implicit Append node.  You can't just
> > funnel all the tuples through one Sort or Limit node because they aren't
> > all the same rowtype.  (Limit might perhaps not care, but Sort will.)
> > But you can't have a separate Sort/Limit for each table either, because
> > that would give the wrong behavior.  Another problem with funneling all
> > the rows through one Sort/Limit is that ModifyTable did need to know
> > which table each row came from, so it can apply the modify to the right
> > table.
> 
> Could you possibly have ModifyTable -> Limit -> MergeAppend?

Before MergeAppend knows which tuple to produce, it needs to see the
tuples (at least the first one from each of its children), meaning that
it needs to pull them through ModifyTable; and at that point it's
already too late.

Also, assuming LIMIT K, MergeAppend will have N children, meaning N
limits, meaning an effective limit of K*N rather than K.

Can you be a little more specific about what you mean?

Regards,Jeff Davis

While reading this thread, I thought of two things I think we could do 
if this feature was implemented:
 1. Sort large UPDATE/DELETEs so it is done in heap order

This is actually a TODO item.  I imagine it would be possible to do 
something like:

DELETE FROM foo USING (...) ORDER BY ctid;

with this patch to help this case.
 2. Reducing deadlocks in big UPDATE/DELETEs

One problem that sometimes occurs when doing multiple multi-row UPDATEs 
or DELETEs concurrently is that the transactions end up working on the 
same rows, but in a different order.  One could use an ORDER BY clause 
to make sure the transactions don't deadlock.

Thoughts?


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

On Tuesday 30 November 2010 20:24:52 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> > On 11/30/2010 02:12 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Daniel Loureiro<daniel@termasa.com.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

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2010 02:12 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel Loureiro<daniel@termasa.com.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?
>
It is valuable as a DBA carelessness/typo catcher only if it is
imposed by default (in line with Kevin's point), and only if it rolls
back rather than reduces the number of affected rows (as per Marko).

We have implemented a damage limitation solution similar to this with
triggers on an MSSQL database, and it has worked for the specific
environment it's in. The safety net is basically that the DBA has to
set an environment variable before a very large delete or update
operation. If the operation is recognised as being beyond the
threshold size the enviroment variable is checked - if it is set the
transaction passes and the variable is reset, if not the transaction
is rolled back.

It should be possible to implement something along these lines in
triggers, all that would be needed is a structure for defining the
(optional) limits on potentially destructive operations. More flexible
options or options based on the number of rows in a table will rapidly
increase the performance impact of the triggers - but may make them
more useful.

I'm not sure if there is a way to persist data (like a row count)
between per row triggers so that the operation could be aborted at the
limit rather than only once all the rows had been updated (potentially
a big peformance gain).

Alastair "Bell" Turner

Technical Lead
^F5

On 11/30/2010 03:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010 20:24:52 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2010 02:12 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>> Daniel Loureiro<daniel@termasa.com.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?
>
>

I don't see that that has anything to do with restricting damage. LIMIT 
might be useful for the reason you give, but not as any sort of 
protection against DBA carelessness. That's what the discussion above is 
about.

cheers

andrew

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 11:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > 3. This doesn't work tremendously well for inheritance trees, where
>> > ModifyTable acts as sort of an implicit Append node.  You can't just
>> > funnel all the tuples through one Sort or Limit node because they aren't
>> > all the same rowtype.  (Limit might perhaps not care, but Sort will.)
>> > But you can't have a separate Sort/Limit for each table either, because
>> > that would give the wrong behavior.  Another problem with funneling all
>> > the rows through one Sort/Limit is that ModifyTable did need to know
>> > which table each row came from, so it can apply the modify to the right
>> > table.
>>
>> Could you possibly have ModifyTable -> Limit -> MergeAppend?
>
> Before MergeAppend knows which tuple to produce, it needs to see the
> tuples (at least the first one from each of its children), meaning that
> it needs to pull them through ModifyTable; and at that point it's
> already too late.
>
> Also, assuming LIMIT K, MergeAppend will have N children, meaning N
> limits, meaning an effective limit of K*N rather than K.
>
> Can you be a little more specific about what you mean?

You seem to be imagining the MergeAppend node on top, but I had it in
the other order in my mind.  The ModifyTable node would be the
outermost plan node, pulling from the Limit, which would deliver the
first n table rows from the MergeAppend, which would be reponsible for
getting it from the various child tables.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
> While reading this thread, I thought of two things I think we could do 
> if this feature was implemented:

>   1. Sort large UPDATE/DELETEs so it is done in heap order

> This is actually a TODO item.  I imagine it would be possible to do 
> something like:
> DELETE FROM foo USING (...) ORDER BY ctid;
> with this patch to help this case.

Well, that's strictly an implementation detail; it is not a reason to
expose ORDER BY to the user, and even less of a reason to invent LIMIT.
It also hasn't got any of the problems we were discussing with
inheritance situations, since it'd be perfectly OK (in fact probably
desirable) to sort each table's rows separately.

>   2. Reducing deadlocks in big UPDATE/DELETEs

> One problem that sometimes occurs when doing multiple multi-row UPDATEs 
> or DELETEs concurrently is that the transactions end up working on the 
> same rows, but in a different order.  One could use an ORDER BY clause 
> to make sure the transactions don't deadlock.

That, on the other hand, seems like potentially a valid use-case.  Note
that the user-given order would have to override any internal attempt to
order by ctid for this to be usable.

I had thought of a slightly different application, which could be
summarized with this example:
UPDATE sometab SET somecol = nextval('seq') ORDER BY id;

with the expectation that somecol's values would then fall in the same
order as the id column.  Unfortunately, that won't actually *work*
reliably, the reason being that ORDER BY is applied after targetlist
computation.  I think enough people would get burnt this way that we'd
have popular demand to make ORDER BY work differently in UPDATE than it
does in SELECT, which seems rather ugly not only from the definitional
side but the implementation side.

(DELETE escapes this issue because it has no user-definable elements in
its targetlist, which is another way that DELETE is simpler here.)
        regards, tom lane

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010 20:24:52 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> 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?

Then you just C-c and that's your ROLLBACK. Been there, seen that (a
developer came to me sweating over maybe-lost data — his chance was that
forgetting the WHERE clause, it did take long enough for him to C-c by
reflex, the oops moment).

But more to the point, I don't see that we're this much on the policy
side of things rather than on the mechanism side. This feature has real
appealing usages (cheap work queues, anti-deadlock, huge data purges
with no production locking — you do that in little steps in a loop).

To summarize, people that are arguing against are saying they will not
themselves put time on the feature more than anything else, I think. I
don't see us refusing a good implementation on the grounds that misuse
is possible.

After all, advisory locks are session based, to name another great foot
gun. If you don't think it's big enough, think about web environments
and pgbouncer in transaction pooling mode. Loads of fun.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> You seem to be imagining the MergeAppend node on top, but I had it in
> the other order in my mind.  The ModifyTable node would be the
> outermost plan node, pulling from the Limit, which would deliver the
> first n table rows from the MergeAppend, which would be reponsible for
> getting it from the various child tables.

That's just a variation of the Sort/Limit/ModifyTable approach.  It
doesn't fix the problem of how ModifyTable knows which table each row
came from, and it doesn't fix the problem of the rows not being all the
same rowtype.  (In fact it makes the latter worse, since now MergeAppend
has to be included in whatever kluge you invent to work around it.)
        regards, tom lane

Excerpts from Daniel Loureiro's message of mar nov 30 15:04:17 -0300 2010:

> So I guess that I have choose the wrong hack to start.

So it seems :-D

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 15:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 11:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>
> >> Could you possibly have ModifyTable -> Limit -> MergeAppend?
> >
> > Before MergeAppend knows which tuple to produce, it needs to see the
> > tuples (at least the first one from each of its children), meaning that
> > it needs to pull them through ModifyTable; and at that point it's
> > already too late.
> >
> 
> You seem to be imagining the MergeAppend node on top

Yes, I assumed that the tuples flowed in the direction of the arrows ;)

Now that I think about it, your representation makes some sense given
our EXPLAIN output.

Regards,Jeff Davis

Daniel Loureiro wrote:
> > 3. This doesn't work tremendously well for inheritance trees, where
> > ModifyTable acts as sort of an implicit Append node.  You can't just
> > funnel all the tuples through one Sort or Limit node because they aren't
> > all the same rowtype.  (Limit might perhaps not care, but Sort will.)
> > But you can't have a separate Sort/Limit for each table either, because
> > that would give the wrong behavior.  Another problem with funneling all
> > the rows through one Sort/Limit is that ModifyTable did need to know
> > which table each row came from, so it can apply the modify to the right
> > table.
> 
> So I guess that I have choose the wrong hack to start.
> 
> Just for curiosity, why the result of "WHERE" filter (in
> SELECT/DELETE/UPDATE) is not put in memory, i.e. an array of ctid, like an
> buffer and then executed by SELECT/DELETE/UPDATE at once ?

Informix dbaccess would prompt a user for confirmation if it saw a
DELETE with no WHERE.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

its pretty clear to me that's 2 different needs here, both linked to DELETE/UPDATE behavior.

A) an feature MySQL-like which will DELETE/UPDATE just K tuples
B) an feature to protect the database in case the DBA forget the "WHERE" statement

I think that the first feature its pretty reasonable for many reasons - some of then listed below (not in order of importance):
 1) MySql compatibility: will turn more easy intercompatibility
 2) speed: why scan all the table if its expected to affect just one row ?
 3) possibility to batch operation (paginate UPDATE/DELETE)
 4) easy-to-use in some operations (like delete the row with higher Y field): its necessary to implement with "ORDER BY"
 5) some others independent (and possibly weird needs) things that i forget

The second feature its something to turn the PostgreSQL more secure: in others words armor from DBA. The syntax maybe will something like "DELETE .... ASSERT 1", or an explicit keyword for this, like: "DELETEO ...". So, the mechanism should be give an error and rollback if the command affect more than specified tuples. IMHO this its a very weird syntax and so much non-standard SQL. So I believe this not a so-necessary feature. Ok I known that I started this discussion (around this weird feature, not the first and reasonable feature), but was good to instigate others thoughts.

Sds,
--
Daniel Loureiro

Hi, 

On 2010-12-01 1:46 PM, Valentine Gogichashvili wrote:
> And speaking about pushing
> data from one table to another, what I really would like to be able to do
> would be also something like:
>
> INSERT INTO ...
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE... ORDER BY.. [LIMIT...]
> RETURNING...;
>
> this would be also quite efficient when re-arranging data in table
> partitions

There already are plans for implementing this (and actually a patch in 
the latest commitfest, look for "writeable CTEs"), sans the ORDER BY and 
LIMIT part.


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg@gmail.com> wrote:
> A) an feature MySQL-like which will DELETE/UPDATE just K tuples
> B) an feature to protect the database in case the DBA forget the "WHERE"
> statement
>

MySQL has B as well. To quote the manual:
"For beginners, a useful startup option is --safe-updates (or
--i-am-a-dummy, which has the same effect). This option was introduced
in MySQL 3.23.11. It is helpful for cases when you might have issued a
DELETE FROM tbl_name statement but forgotten the WHERE clause.
Normally, such a statement deletes all rows from the table. With
--safe-updates, you can delete rows only by specifying the key values
that identify them. This helps prevent accidents.
...   *      You are not permitted to execute an UPDATE or DELETE
statement unless you specify a key constraint in the WHERE clause or
provide a LIMIT clause (or both). For example:
     UPDATE tbl_name SET not_key_column=val WHERE key_column=val;
     UPDATE tbl_name SET not_key_column=val LIMIT 1;
   *      The server limits all large SELECT results to 1,000 rows
unless the statement includes a LIMIT clause.   *      The server aborts multiple-table SELECT statements that
probably need to examine more than 1,000,000 row combinations."

I have actually suggested that a certain subset of my users only
connect to the database if they are willing to use the --i-am-a-dummy
flag.


-- 
Rob Wultsch
wultsch@gmail.com

Am 01.12.2010 15:37, schrieb Rob Wultsch:
> "For beginners, a useful startup option is --safe-updates (or
> --i-am-a-dummy, which has the same effect). This option was introduced
> in MySQL 3.23.11. It is helpful for cases when you might have issued a
> DELETE FROM tbl_name statement but forgotten the WHERE clause.
> Normally, such a statement deletes all rows from the table. With
> --safe-updates, you can delete rows only by specifying the key values
> that identify them. This helps prevent accidents.

Is it really up to the database to decide what queries are ok? It's the 
task of the developers to test their applikations.

Mario Weilguni <roadrunner6@gmx.at> wrote:
> Is it really up to the database to decide what queries are ok?
> It's the task of the developers to test their applikations.
We're talking about ad hoc queries here, entered directly through
psql or similar.
-Kevin

> 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.

Queueing.  If logless tables are in 9.1, then using PostgreSQL as the
backend for a queue becomes a sensible thing to do.   And what is a
"pop" off a queue other than:

DELETE FROM my_queue ORDER BY age LIMIT 1;

For this reason, I think accepting a good patch for DELETE would be
worthwhile even if we don't have UPDATE yet.

--                                  -- Josh Berkus                                    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                        http://www.pgexperts.com
 

Hey,

I don't clearly understand why anybody should perform DELETE
directly from a psql terminal on a production system. WHY ?
I can't understand what problem with DELETE without WHERE clause
for application developers and why DBMS should "protect" them
from DELETE FROM table.

PS. Anybody can perform rm -rf from the shell as root. So what ?..





--
// Dmitriy.

On tis, 2010-11-30 at 14:20 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 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 have any use for DELETE with LIMIT, but UPDATE with LIMIT could
be very useful if you are doing full-table updates and you don't have
enough space so you do it in chunks.

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2010-11-30 at 14:20 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > 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 have any use for DELETE with LIMIT, but UPDATE with LIMIT could
> be very useful if you are doing full-table updates and you don't have
> enough space so you do it in chunks.

So should this now be a TODO item?  Text?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2010-11-30 at 14:20 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> > 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 have any use for DELETE with LIMIT, but UPDATE with LIMIT could
>> be very useful if you are doing full-table updates and you don't have
>> enough space so you do it in chunks.
>
> So should this now be a TODO item?  Text?

Allow DELETE and UPDATE to be used with LIMIT and ORDER BY.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On tis, 2010-11-30 at 14:20 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> > 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 have any use for DELETE with LIMIT, but UPDATE with LIMIT could
> >> be very useful if you are doing full-table updates and you don't have
> >> enough space so you do it in chunks.
> >
> > So should this now be a TODO item? ?Text?
> 
> Allow DELETE and UPDATE to be used with LIMIT and ORDER BY.

Done:
Allow DELETE and UPDATE to be used with LIMIT and ORDER BY    *
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01997.php   *
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg00021.php
 

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +