* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> >This information could be extremely useful for forensics, debugging, ETL
> >processes (many of which create tables as part of their processes), etc.
>
> I'd say "moderately useful" at best. Quite a number of things could
> make the creation dates misleading or not distinctive (think
> partition replacement, restore from pg_dump, replicas, etc.).
> ALTER dates would be more useful, but as Tom points out, would need
> the user-configurability which can only be delivered by something
> like event triggers.
To be honest, I really just don't find this to be *that* difficult and
an intuitive set of rules which are well documented feels like it'd
cover 99% of the cases. pg_dump would preserve the times (though it
could be optional), replicas should as well, etc. We haven't even
started talking about the 'hard' part, which would be a 'modification'
type of field..
Thanks,
Stephen
