Andrew Whitworth schreef:
On Jan 16, 2008 8:18 PM, Majorly
On 17/01/2008, Matthew Britton
Sounds good. Who's getting the
People have suggested bureaucrats - a poor idea, that.
Don't give the permission to anybody. A better idea is to fix big
deletions so that they don't bork the server when invoked, and then
remove the 'bigdelete' permission entirely. Flag a page as being "in
dispose" while a background process slowly grinds through the
deletions. Ideally, this situation won't come up too frequently.
Wouldn't it be possible to change the way deletions work? Currently,
when a page is deleted, the following happens:
- The related entry is deleted from the page table (1 row affected)
- All corresponding rows in the revision table are copied (using INSERT
SELECT) to the archive table (N rows affected, fetching of an additional
N rows required)
- The revision table rows are then deleted (N rows affected)
This adds up to a total of 2N+1 rows being inserted/deleted and another
N rows being selected.
Two improvements could be made:
- Finally start using the rev_deleted field rather than the archive
table. This changes the INSERT SELECT to a UPDATE WHERE on the revision
table. This only affects N rows rather than 2N, and doesn't require
SELECTing any rows.
- Delete the page table entry immediately (making the page and its
revisions invisible), and schedule moving/rev_deleting the revisions in
the job queue. This will severely reduce the load of a delete request,
but will delay the old revisions showing up in the undelete pool (the
"undelete N deleted revisions?" link), making it hard/impossible to
undelete a page shortly after deleting it. A solution could be to
move/rev_delete the first revision immediately (i.e. right after
deleting the page table entry) as well, so at least the most recent
revision can be undeleted.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)