| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Khan Muhammad Usman <usman(dot)k(at)bitnine(dot)net>, yudhi s <learnerdatabase99(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: question on audit columns |
| Date: | 2024-09-04 14:36:31 |
| Message-ID: | b683944c-63f2-456f-a423-efe743fc0769@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tim Clarke | 2024-09-04 14:48:19 | Re: question on audit columns |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2024-09-04 14:31:29 | Re: question on audit columns |