| From: | William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: creating audit tables |
| Date: | 2004-10-16 05:57:43 |
| Message-ID: | ckqd4h$2hel$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
12/31/9999 would be Y10K problem. :)
Dunno about you but I sorta don't care if somebody has to rewrite my app
8000 years from now. :)
Ian Harding wrote:
> Oh yes. I do that a lot for attributes that need a history (last name,
> which changes when you get married, etc) It is a bit more complicated
> for queries though, since I use null to indicate an unknown end date
> instead of the Y2K problem solution below.
>
> -Ian
>
>
>>>>William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> 10/15/04 12:46 PM >>>
>
> Have you thought about unifying the audit + the current table and add
> from/to datestamps for every record?
>
> Example:
>
> from_dt to_dt value
> 9/1/2004 9/30/2004 ABC
> 9/30/2004 10/5/2004 XYZ
> 10/6/2004 12/31/9999 123
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2004-10-16 06:59:34 | Re: plpgsql loop not returning value |
| Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2004-10-16 05:23:09 | Avoiding sequential scans with OR join condition |