| From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Capture a changelog for the current transaction |
| Date: | 2026-10-06 13:08:08 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaDd_FjwXFXpSx59KpJZbsTtjhjRMXC=NAdfniSHyxp4rQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 6:39 AM Stuart Campbell <
stuart(dot)campbell(at)ridewithvia(dot)com> wrote:
[snip]
> Would using temporary tables be a feasible solution? That seems to be
> functionally what I want, but maybe it's hard to write triggers that write
> to temp tables.
>
> Maybe a persistent log table is OK, and each transaction is
> responsible for deleting its own rows from it? Sounds like a lot of churn
> though...
>
A recent email in
https://postgrespro.com/list/thread-id/2812560#77826d7580a9488ca28eb4bcfe94aa37(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de
mentioned this extension to create "persistent" temporary tables (where
each connection doesn't need to CREATE them every time.
https://github.com/darold/pgtt
Maybe that would be useful. I've never used them, though, so don't know
any gotchas.
--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2026-10-06 13:29:47 | Re: Capture a changelog for the current transaction |
| Previous Message | Stuart Campbell | 2026-10-06 10:38:56 | Capture a changelog for the current transaction |