Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
>
>>On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:33:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>and I don't even see the argument for doing it via a table rather
>>>than via the postmaster log.
>
>
>>Simple. Postmaster logs can roll over or otherwise be lost without
>>damaging the DB. This would provide a non-volatile log of DDLs.
>
>
> In that case you have to provide a pretty strong argument why everyone
> should be forced to have a non-volatile log of DDLs. Or will there be
> a way to turn it off? What about applications that, say, create and
> delete tens of thousands of temp tables every day?
There were quite some proposals about additional triggers (on
connect/disconnnect) around, I wonder if some kind of
schema/database-level trigger could be used for DDL logging.
Very vague idea, please rant now :-)
Regards,
Andreas
