On 8/19/07, Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> wrote:
> As you mention, you could use a trigger instead of explicitly setting
> updated_at to DEFAULT, which might be more convenient because you
> don't need remember to set the updated_at column explicitly on update.
>
> Whether or not this information is *interesting* is really up to the
> specifics of your application, rather than answerable in a general
> sense.
I'm thinking it's probably going to make more sense to have a
logging/history table. What's the use of seeing when an entry was
updated when you don't know what was updated anyway :).
I guess that could be solved with triggers, each table have a trigger
that fires on update and runs a stored procedure.
--
regards,
Robin
