-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > My original intention was to keep two sets of tables. The first > containing only the working set of current records. The second > containing all prior versions. I haven't experimented with such a setup > yet and I'm wondering if it is even necessary. The alternative being to > keep only a single set of tables. > Can anyone relate their experiences with such a thing? Which approaches > should I take into consideration? I like the multi-table approach; I use a schema named "audit" that contains a copy of some of the important tables (sans constraints). The nice part is that I can use the exact same table name, which makes things easier. A few extra columns on each audit table track who made the change, what type it was (insert, update, or delete [trigger event]), and the time of the change [default timestamptz]. Throw in some triggers and you're done. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@xxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200509192258 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFDL3txvJuQZxSWSsgRArxSAJ9z4v+pRjULrBg4AiyD4jw7iHpE2wCg/qa0 UwTQQdH4CVfs97l4OgLUATY= =Yap5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
