What about doing both? Write a pre_save record indicating the operation about to be attempted. And a post_save indicating the success of the operation, using a unique identifier to identify the pair. Then if the post_save gets out of sync, you have a record of transactions that may be at fault.
Just my two cents. - Robin On Apr 23, 2:07 pm, "Jason McVetta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/23/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It's a bit ugly to declare instance hidden variables (pre) but we need to > > be > > sure that the save/delete is effective (post) before logging it. > > It's not beautiful, perhaps, but I may end up doing something very similar. > However, one requirement of my project is that the audit tables not require > UPDATE or DELETE permission. Which begs the question, if I write my audit > record on the pre_save signal, how do I record the success or failure of the > save() operation? > > Alternatively, I could write the audit record on post_save. Although I > can't think off the top of my head of an example where this would get out of > sync with the main table, something about it feels risky. But I will have > to think about this one some more. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
