Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D80C6325EF for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:28:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97481-01 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 16:28:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net (relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net [212.159.7.99]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFF9632266 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:28:35 -0300 (ADT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAKs6/kvUOFPl/2dsb2JhbACeIHHCL4UTBA Received: from plesk-mail01.plus.net ([212.56.83.229]) by relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net with ESMTP; 27 May 2010 17:28:34 +0100 Received: (qmail 19995 invoked from network); 27 May 2010 16:28:34 +0000 Received: from host81-147-64-21.range81-147.btcentralplus.com (HELO osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org) (81.147.64.21) by plesk-mail01.plus.net with SMTP; 27 May 2010 16:28:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 67759 invoked by uid 1001); 27 May 2010 16:28:33 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:28:33 +0100 From: Ben Morrow To: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Rules and sequences Message-ID: <20100527162833.GA67751@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org> References: <20100526181620.GA54996@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4884.1274918674@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Newsgroups: pgsql.sql Organization: Who, me? User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.701 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/132 X-Sequence-Number: 34180 Quoth tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane): > Ben Morrow writes: > > I am trying to implement a fairly standard 'audit table' setup, but > > using rules instead of triggers (since it should be more efficient). > > Rules are sufficiently tricky that I would never, ever rely on them for > auditing. Use a simple AFTER trigger instead. OK, thanks. Ben