Now you can. ;-)
auth.enable_record_versioning(db, archive_db=other_db)
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:28:43 UTC-5, rochacbruno wrote:
>
> is it possible to redirect the archive to a separate database?
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Massimo Di Pierro <
> massimo.dipie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is how it works:
>>
>> # define auth
>> auth = Auth(db, hmac_key=Auth.get_or_create_key())
>> auth.define_tables(username=True,signature=True)
>>
>> # define your own tables like
>> db.define_table('mything',Field('name'),auth.signature)
>>
>> # than do:
>> auth.enable_record_versioning(db)
>>
>> how does it work? every table, including auth_user will have an
>> auth.signature including created_by, created_on, modified_by, modified_on,
>> is_active fields. When a record of table mything (or any other table) is
>> modified, a copy of the previous record is copied into mything_archive
>> which references the current record. When a record is deleted, it is not
>> actually deleted but is_active is set to False, all records with
>> is_active==False are filtered out in searches except in appadmin.
>>
>> Pros:
>> - your app will get full record archival for auditing purposes
>> - could not be simpler. nothing else to do. Try with
>> SQLFORM.grid(db.mything) for example.
>> - does not break references and there is no need for uuids
>> - does not slow down searches because archive is done in separate archive
>> tables
>>
>> Cons:
>> - uses lots of extra memory because every version of a record is stored
>> (it would be more efficient to store changes only but that would make more
>> difficult to do auditing).
>> - slows down db(...).update(...) for multi record because it needs to
>> copy all records needing update from the original table to the archive
>> table. This requires selecting all the records.
>>
>> Comments? Suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruno Rocha
> [http://rochacbruno.com.br]
>
>
