RE: Trigger question

Journaling was not implemented because with triggering you only deal with
the physical audit file. All I have to do is write the report for it. With
journaling, it's more complicated to interpret the data, plus you have to
maintain the receivers, and it is more resource intensive.

Francis Lapeyre
IS Dept. Programmer/Analyst
Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
E-mail: flapeyre@xxxxxxxx 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Kahn
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:50 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Trigger question

On 21/03/06, Lapeyre, Francis <FLAPEYRE@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Which was what I meant, since not all (or even most) programs around 
> here check to see that the record was changed before doing an UPDATE. 
> Since our files have a "last changed" date and time, we are now forced 
> to compare the record to the previous one and only change the 
> timestamp and issue an update if the before and after images differ. I 
> don't use the trigger itself to do that; the only thing the trigger does
is add records to an audit file.

Does using a trigger that way buy you anything over simply journalling the
file? A journal seems to me to be the cheapest and most reliable way of
providing an audit trail of file changes.

--
Dave...

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.