On Monday 19 September 2005 01:29, Mike Rylander wrote: > On 9/18/05, Michael Schuerig <michael@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In my current project I have a customer requirement for > > implementing a change log. This is not just for auditing purposes, > > rather it is meant to be accessible by users so they can get an > > overview of the change history of an object. The entire data set is > > not big, I'm expecting considerably less than 50.000 records. > > Changes are only made by about 30 human users. > > Will you need to tell who made what changes? If so, you'll probably > want each user to be a fully fledged Postgres users. Yes, but that's a thing I can easily handle at application/framework level, whereas using multiple Pg users would be difficult. [single set vs. working set and audit set] > Keeping a single set of tables can get pretty complex. You'd need to > mask each table with a view and a set of rules for working with only > the newest version of each record. I always set up as separate set > of audit tables to record the old versions of each row. > > > Can anyone relate their experiences with such a thing? Which > > approaches should I take into consideration? > > I blogged about my most recent incarnation of "audit tables" here: > http://open-ils.org/blog/?p=28 . We don't use Postgres users (we > have 2 million), but it would be trivial to modify what I've done > there to work with real PG users or any other particulars of your > environment. Thanks. I'll have to read up on PL/PgSQL to understand your code, but that's something I intended to do anyway. Michael -- Michael Schuerig All good people read good books mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxx Now your conscience is clear http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Tanita Tikaram, Twist In My Sobriety ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
