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.
>
>
>
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 |