On 9/20/05, Berend Tober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I guess I originally thought using INHERIT rather than LIKE was that,
> having the audit history, I might at some point present a select view
> across both the base and descendant tables or something ("...if you
> record it, they (PHB's
On Tuesday 20 September 2005 08:44, Berend Tober wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
[MS: on audit tables]
> >>Can anyone relate their experiences with such a thing? Which
> >> approaches should I take into consideration?
> >
> >I like the multi-
Mike Rylander wrote:
On 9/20/05, Berend Tober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
/*
The following is based on suggestion by Mike Rylander posted on
Postgresql-General
Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:29:51 +
Rylander's original suggestion employed a trigger and tracked
only row updates. My implementation ma
On 9/20/05, Berend Tober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /*
> The following is based on suggestion by Mike Rylander posted on
> Postgresql-General
> Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:29:51 +
>
> Rylander's original suggestion employed a trigger and tracked
> only row updates. My implementation makes use of rul
Berend Tober wrote:
...See "User Comments" at
"http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/tutorial-inheritance.html";
for something that should set you afire.
And, commenting on my own post, try this cool function:
/*
The following is based on suggestion by Mike Rylander posted on
P
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-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 wonde
-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 neces
On Monday 19 September 2005 01:29, Mike Rylander wrote:
> On 9/18/05, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 th
On 9/18/05, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
