Comment by dumbo-octopus
2 years 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.
2 years 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.
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.
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.
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.