Re: Data auditing: triggers vs application code
- From: Sandeep Dubey <dubey.sandeep@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Igor Neyman <ineyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:36:44 -0400
Igor- Application will be based on J2EE. Delete to a live table and insert
to audit table will be part of one single transaction one thread. I don't
think it will be an extra trip. Moreover the point being putforward is we
will deploy multiple application servers (10s or more) to do scaling.
Here back in past the trigger got somehow disabled - packaged called from
trigger was invalidated, later fixed the packge but could not check the
triggers. Application ran fine without complaining only later to found no
audit records. I think that mindset of application architect is pushing
against going with triggers. It's not though easy to disable the part og
Java code that does the audit -you need to actually go and remove the code
portion.
Stephane - Thanks for your comments
Thanks, Sandeep
On 9/21/05, Igor Neyman <ineyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Regarding your 2nd point:
> In high transaction environment making extra trip from application to
> database to log data in adit table will cause more overhead than using
> trigger to populate audit table.
> Now, if you are afraid that someone could disable auditing triggers,
> aren't you afraid that someone could disable "auditing part" of application?
> Igor Neyman
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Sandeep Dubey
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:52 PM
> *To:* oracle-l
> *Subject:* Data auditing: triggers vs application code
>
> Hi,
> I need to keep track of history of data change in the live tables. Two
> methods are being compared.
> 1. Create triggers on the live table. For each insert/update/delete
> insert a row in the audit table.
> 2. Let the application take care of inserting the data in the audit table
> itself.
> The cons against using triggers in the order of severity are:
> 1. If somehow the triggers are disabled in production, the application
> goes through without noticing it and no audit data will be captured.
> 2. In a high transaction environment triggers have overhead.
> As a database person, I am inclined to use triggers. But I fail to
> guarantee that trigger will never get disabled. If it is disabled somehow
> application SHOULD stop. (It is impractical to check the status of all
> underlying triggers before each transaction).
> I would like to hear how you guys handle data auditing in your system.
> Thanks
> Sandeep
>
Other related posts:
