Hacker News Reader

Yeah, soft delete is the way to go in 99.99% of the cases, with a system setup to eventually hard delete on some schedule (preferably don't hard delete until X number of backups have caught the soft deleted data safely, for example).

View on HN

Hi, this is Mike from Atlassian Engineering. Strongly agree with this. I'd say that if you can afford it, don't do the hard deletes on a schedule though. You never know when there's a system out there referring to soft deleted data that fails once the data is hard deleted. Hard deletes should feel frightening because they are frightening.

i disagree for one reason. you really don't want the tooling or the process to rot. running it automatically normalizes the scary. otherwise you have bespoke tools in indeterminate states being run by people who are learning how to run them again. that's when i believe things get dangerous.

if it forces additional fail safes or backups to be able to do so safely, then that's probably a good thing to have anyway, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com