On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:17 -0400, David Johnston wrote: > Ideally the decision of whether to do so could be a client decision. Not > storing intra-transaction changes is easier than storing all changes. At > worse you could stage up all changed then simply fail to store all > intermediate results within a given relation. It that case you gain nothing > in execution performance but safe both storage and interpretative resources. > So the question becomes is it worth doing without the ability to store > intermediate results? If you were to ponder both which setup would the > default be? If the default is the harder one (all statements) to implement > then to avoid upgrade issues the syntax should specify that it is logging > transactions only.
I think the biggest question here is what guarantees can be offered? What if the transaction aborts after having written some data, does the audit log still get updated? > I see the "user" element as having two components: I think this is essentially a good idea, although as I said in my other email, we should be careful how we label the application-supplied information in the audit log. 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