From: | Bob <luckyratfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zlatko Matic <zlatko(dot)matic1(at)sb(dot)t-com(dot)hr> |
Cc: | Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Audit trail ? |
Date: | 2005-05-29 16:09:59 |
Message-ID: | 762e5c050529090915cadffb@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Sorry for short message, but I'm headed out for the weekend.
At my places of work we have use both a single table and one table for every
table.
I personally liked the single table for every table approach.
On 5/29/05, Zlatko Matic <zlatko(dot)matic1(at)sb(dot)t-com(dot)hr> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I must have audit trail of all insert/update/delete on several table. I
> have
> several questions regarding that:
>
> 1. Is it better to have one audit trail table that collects
> insert/update/delete of all audited tables, or it is better to have
> separate
> audit trail table for every audited table ?
> 2. To use triggers or rules ? Example for both ?
> 3. Could someone give me an example of a successfull audit trail solution
> ?
>
> I'm running on lack of time, so any help would be precious...
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Rylander | 2005-05-29 16:21:17 | Re: Audit trail ? |
Previous Message | Zlatko Matic | 2005-05-29 10:42:36 | Audit trail ? |