Re:Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
by whoomp12342 on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @10:10PM
(#32160525)
thats exactly their point, is_active or deleted_at represents the same thing(just inverse).
However, if you DONT use an active/deleted flag, and instead do what the author suggests, I dont know the right way to support deleting said user
If you set the deleted_record table as part of a trigger on delete of other tables, you could turn on cascading delete and hope for the best. Outside of that I dont have any plan for using this with referential integrty.
It would be easy enough if you decided NOT to use referential integrity, but then you save the space of ONE user record and retain how many orphan records, making them all effectively soft deleted anyways... whats the point?
However, if you DONT use an active/deleted flag, and instead do what the author suggests, I dont know the right way to support deleting said user
If you set the deleted_record table as part of a trigger on delete of other tables, you could turn on cascading delete and hope for the best. Outside of that I dont have any plan for using this with referential integrty.
It would be easy enough if you decided NOT to use referential integrity, but then you save the space of ONE user record and retain how many orphan records, making them all effectively soft deleted anyways... whats the point?