News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Soft deletion probably isn't worth it. Parent comment

Re:Soft deletion probably isn't worth it by jewayne on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @03:01PM (#32156351)
I would argue that in many cases the concept behind soft deletion is to make deletion permanent.

Hard deletes retain no memory of what you wanted to be gone, so any malfunctioning sync process will continuously recreate the deleted record soon after it's deleted. Soft deletes are often the only way to make sure deleted records don't reappear.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Soft deletion probably isn't worth it by eeperson on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @03:10PM (#32156478)
Couldn't a malfunctioning sync process undo a soft delete as well?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Soft deletion probably isn't worth it by jayd16 on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @03:43PM (#32156934)
Null is more ambiguous than an explicit conflict. If there is literally no record, even of the delete action then there's no timestamp for last write wins.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Soft deletion probably isn't worth it by trinovantes on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @03:25PM (#32156679)
Assuming you're using a modern database, replication is done with paxos/raft and they are formally proven to not allow this to happen as both edits/deletions are both just entries in distributed event log.
[ Parent | on HN ]