On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 19:34 +0900, Vlad Arkhipov wrote: > What's wrong with SPI/timetravel extension for system versioning? > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/contrib-spi.html > > We are heavily using system-versioned and application-time period > tables in our enterprise products (most of them are bi-temporal). > However our implementation is based on triggers and views and > therefore is not very convenient to use. There are also some locking > issues with foreign keys to application-time period tables. It will be > great if the new temporal SQL features will be included in the > Postgresql core with SQL 2011 syntax support. It is especially > important for bi-temporal tables because of complex internal logic of > UPDATE/DELETE and huge SELECT queries for such tables.
I've already pointed out some missing features in this thread, but the big ones in my mind are: 1. It doesn't use 9.2 Range Types, which would help in a lot of ways (like making the SELECT queries a lot simpler and faster). 2. It's missing a lot of options, like storing the user that modified a row or the changed columns. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers