On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 17:07 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > The fact that it has an unknown sequence number or timestamp for > purposes of ordering visibility of transactions doesn't mean you > can't show that it completed in an audit log. In other words, I > think the needs for a temporal database are significantly different > from the needs of an auditing system.
... > I would assume an audit log would have very different needs from > tracking changes for a temporal database view. It even seems > possible that you might want to see what people *looked* at, versus > just changes. You might want to see transactions which were rolled > back, which are irrelevant for a temporal view. If we're talking > about an auditing system, we're talking about an almost completely > different animal from a temporal view of the database. OK, I think I see what you're saying now. Basically, an audit log means different things to different people, so I think it confused the issue. But "temporal" is fairly vague, too. It also seems like there might be a lot of overlap, depending on how we define those terms. I am most interested in the topic you brought up about serializability and system time (transaction time), because it would be a fundamental piece upon which we can build a lot of these other things (including what could be called an audit log). Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers