Message-ID: <242ee502-4b8e-49b5-b2f9-ffba6c678ca2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 09:58:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: question on audit columns
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
References: <CAEzWdqd=83DQo4SK0sjPhBNAHGCvdcJ3X0OruFLgkL008AM8ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPnRvGvHAC8HjLCZ2uUBCRZ7=fMJnkTPd3cBOchJu-Vn7G2MHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEzWdqfUWE=fuR5k1rd1iQx4K1-LceW3razY8f_tb9YONAZRMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DBAPR01MB6840804A91ABB765B0A07EACF29C2@DBAPR01MB6840.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
 <b683944c-63f2-456f-a423-efe743fc0769@aklaver.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Johannes Lochmann <johannes.lochmann@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b683944c-63f2-456f-a423-efe743fc0769@aklaver.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/242ee502-4b8e-49b5-b2f9-ffba6c678ca2%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

... and (3) the values are not updated on manual actions without 
triggers - which might or might not be desirable depending on the intention.

Best,

Johannes

On 9/4/2024 16:36, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 9/4/24 06:17, Khan Muhammad Usman wrote:
>> Yes this would be the better approach.
>
> 1) Except the overhead is now shifted to the application, which may or 
> not be better. You are also moving the audit responsibility to the 
> application and the application maintainers and making it application 
> specific. If a new application/client starts hitting the database and 
> it did not get the memo about the audit fields they won't be filled in.
>
> 2) I would recommend setting up a some realistic tests and see if the 
> overhead of the update triggers would be a concern.
>
>
>