From: | "Robin Helgelin" <lobbin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "PostgreSQL general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: entry log |
Date: | 2007-08-20 06:25:37 |
Message-ID: | c014a9590708192325t44e1995fw1d526b491a888e17@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/19/07, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> wrote:
> As you mention, you could use a trigger instead of explicitly setting
> updated_at to DEFAULT, which might be more convenient because you
> don't need remember to set the updated_at column explicitly on update.
>
> Whether or not this information is *interesting* is really up to the
> specifics of your application, rather than answerable in a general
> sense.
I'm thinking it's probably going to make more sense to have a
logging/history table. What's the use of seeing when an entry was
updated when you don't know what was updated anyway :).
I guess that could be solved with triggers, each table have a trigger
that fires on update and runs a stored procedure.
--
regards,
Robin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luca Ferrari | 2007-08-20 06:57:14 | pg_class.relfilenode for large tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-20 03:30:24 | Re: Searching for Duplicates and Hosed the System |