On 26 October 2010 19:05, Steve Holden <holden...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/26/2010 12:40 PM, Phlip wrote: >> Note that "isabelle_item" appears twice. We are following the auditing >> rule "always write new records to change data - never edit previous >> records". Someone edited isabelle_item's payload data (not shown), so >> we add a new record without touching the existing record. > > I hope the auditors are only forcing you to do this with records that > aren't referenced as part of relationships, otherwise your database is > going to get hammered updating all the foreign keys. > > Wouldn't it make more sense (not that auditors will necessarily be > persuaded by sensible arguments) to dump a copy of a row (plus possibly > a timestamp field) to an archival table before update? This coild easily > be done on a pre-save signal ...
This sounds like what django-reversion[1] does :) [1]: http://github.com/etianen/django-reversion#readme -- Łukasz Rekucki -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
