Re: Audit Logs WAS: temporal support patch

On 22/08/12 10:56, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> First, note the change in topic.
>>
>> This whole discussion has gone rather far afield from Miroslav's
>> original submission, which was for temporal tables, which is NOT
>> the same thing as audit logs, although the use cases overlap
>> significantly.
>
> I don't think the concerns I raised about apparent order of
> execution for serializable transactions apply to audit logs. If
> we've moved entirely off the topic of the original subject, it is a
> complete non-issue.
>
> -Kevin
>
>
Hmm...

I was simply using an audit log example as a more specific case to
understand things!

Right now, I am meant to be working on a project I'm way behind on!
Hopefully later, I will have the time to read more carefully the
interesting posts following my mention of the audit log example and to
reply as appropriate.

About 10 years ago, I implemented some temporal features in a database
to cope with insurance quotes that had to be valid for a specified
number of days in the future that was invariant with respect to future
changes in premiums with effective dates within the period of validity
of the quote. If anyone is interested, I'll see if I can find my notes
and write it up (but in a different thread!).

Cheers,
Gavin