RE: Re: implement audit trail table

Paul Chin
Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:38:34 -0000

The reason I''m trying to implement audit trigger in the application.
batch
process will be done at back end.  I do not want batch update to be audited,
this could generate high overhead.

-----Original Message-----
From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
[mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org]On
Behalf Of Michael
Schuerig
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:25 AM
To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
Subject: [Rails] Re: implement audit trail table


On Tuesday 26 July 2005 19:21, Corey Lawson wrote:
> Probably better to do it more or less invisibly in the database if
> you can via triggers, if your data is auditable... It''s generally
> possible in SQL Server, Postgres, (DB2, ) and Oracle to shmoosh
> relevant data together like in a field:delta, field:delta, etc.
> string for what has been changed, too, before the actual record is
> posted in the regular table.

I favor the trigger approach, too, but I''m not convinced that a single
table can do the job of holding differences of all kinds. I haven''t
tried this before, though. Have you done this successfully?

Michael

--
Michael Schuerig                  Failures to use one''s frontal lobes
mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org        can result in the
loss of them.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/   --William H. Calvin
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org