Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty sure it does what I'm asking, but let me rephrase. Does
> xaction_id globally uniquely identify the audit trail of edited
> transactions? I.e., no other audit trail of transactions has that
> same xaction_id.
Yes, it does what you're asking
Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. What I meant was, can we make xaction_id globally unique
> under the equivalence relation
>
> Transaction t1 == Transaction t2 iff t1 is an update of t2 or
> t2 is an update of t1?
>
> So that xaction_id g
David Merrill writes:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:39:43PM -0800, Dave Peticolas wrote:
> > David Merrill writes:
> > >
> > > The xaction_id is not globally unique. If a record is edited 9 times,
> > > there will be 10 records with the same id. Once for the record
> > > originally created, and on
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:39:43PM -0800, Dave Peticolas wrote:
> David Merrill writes:
> >
> > The xaction_id is not globally unique. If a record is edited 9 times,
> > there will be 10 records with the same id. Once for the record
> > originally created, and once for each edit.
> >
> > The gui
David Merrill writes:
>
> The xaction_id is not globally unique. If a record is edited 9 times,
> there will be 10 records with the same id. Once for the record
> originally created, and once for each edit.
>
> The guid is globally unique. Each of these records would have different
> guids.
Rig
Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the xaction_id also a guid, in the sense of being globally unique?
I don't believe it is "globally" unique -- it is shared across all the
history of a particular transaction.
> What I'm really getting at is, for a given transaction, will there be
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:02:35PM -0800, Dave Peticolas wrote:
> David Merrill writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:02:15PM -0800, Dave Peticolas wrote:
> > > David Merrill writes:
> > >
> > > > The major changes are:
> > > >
> > > > - a single table; no separate audit table.
> > > > - the cl
David Merrill writes:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:02:15PM -0800, Dave Peticolas wrote:
> > David Merrill writes:
> >
> > > The major changes are:
> > >
> > > - a single table; no separate audit table.
> > > - the client doesn't work directly with guids, but instead works with
> > > an "ID" fi
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:02:15PM -0800, Dave Peticolas wrote:
> David Merrill writes:
>
> > The major changes are:
> >
> > - a single table; no separate audit table.
> > - the client doesn't work directly with guids, but instead works with
> > an "ID" field that does not change when records
David Merrill writes:
> The major changes are:
>
> - a single table; no separate audit table.
> - the client doesn't work directly with guids, but instead works with
> an "ID" field that does not change when records are edited. The guid
> stays globally unique. The client still has access to
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:36:31PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> David Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - a single table; no separate audit table.
> > - the client doesn't work directly with guids, but instead works with
> > an "ID" field that does not change when records are edited. Th
David Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - a single table; no separate audit table.
> - the client doesn't work directly with guids, but instead works with
> an "ID" field that does not change when records are edited. The guid
> stays globally unique. The client still has access to the gui
I've worked what I thought were the best ideas on how to handle the
audit trail into this:
AUDITING
The database provides a complete audit trail of all changes to data. The audit
trail mechanism uses the "breadcrumb" approach. No financial data is ever
changed or deleted in the physica
13 matches
Mail list logo
