Re: question on audit columns

From: Johannes Lochmann <johannes(dot)lochmann(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: question on audit columns
Date: 2024-11-14 08:58:49
Message-ID: 242ee502-4b8e-49b5-b2f9-ffba6c678ca2@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

... and (3) the values are not updated on manual actions without
triggers - which might or might not be desirable depending on the intention.

Best,

Johannes

On 9/4/2024 16:36, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 9/4/24 06:17, Khan Muhammad Usman wrote:
>> Yes this would be the better approach.
>
> 1) Except the overhead is now shifted to the application, which may or
> not be better. You are also moving the audit responsibility to the
> application and the application maintainers and making it application
> specific. If a new application/client starts hitting the database and
> it did not get the memo about the audit fields they won't be filled in.
>
> 2) I would recommend setting up a some realistic tests and see if the
> overhead of the update triggers would be a concern.
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message JOLAPARA Urvi (SAFRAN) 2024-11-14 09:05:49 RE: postgresql-17.0-1 Application - silent installation Issue
Previous Message Patrick FICHE 2024-11-14 08:42:36 Retrieve filename within a script