From: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Implementing a change log |
Date: | 2005-09-20 03:01:30 |
Message-ID: | 498079be1a9f7ca6290e78f4dcc17c04@biglumber.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> My original intention was to keep two sets of tables. The first
> containing only the working set of current records. The second
> containing all prior versions. I haven't experimented with such a setup
> yet and I'm wondering if it is even necessary. The alternative being to
> keep only a single set of tables.
> Can anyone relate their experiences with such a thing? Which approaches
> should I take into consideration?
I like the multi-table approach; I use a schema named "audit" that contains
a copy of some of the important tables (sans constraints). The nice part is
that I can use the exact same table name, which makes things easier. A few
extra columns on each audit table track who made the change, what type it
was (insert, update, or delete [trigger event]), and the time of the change
[default timestamptz]. Throw in some triggers and you're done.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200509192258
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFDL3txvJuQZxSWSsgRArxSAJ9z4v+pRjULrBg4AiyD4jw7iHpE2wCg/qa0
UwTQQdH4CVfs97l4OgLUATY=
=Yap5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-20 03:09:49 | Re: update problem in triggers |
Previous Message | Thomas F. O'Connell | 2005-09-20 02:21:47 | Re: Replication |