3 ms·
I don't totally understand the value of the second, but isn't the first already exist in things like BigQuery?
by dillondoyle 5y ago
I don't totally understand the value of the second, but isn't the first already exist in things like BigQuery?
- zimpenfish 5y ago> isn't the first already exist in things like BigQuery? You can truncate a BQ table and reload it if you want to change things. Had to do this at a previous gig (twice a day!) because the data warehouse people would only take data from BQ but the main data was in Firebase (yes, it was an insane place.)
- dillondoyle 5y agooh that sounds horrible !! i would be terrified to mess that up
- mathnmusic 5y agoOr a traditional database with read-only credentials and a function that adds "ORDER BY version DESC LIMIT 1".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lojack 5y agobut is a traditional database cryptographically secure? if a super user with write permissions (or, say, direct access to the physical data store) modifies records are users able to validate the integrity of the data?
- jayd16 5y agoYou could use permissions and stored procedures that ensure append only.
- jeroiraz 5y agoThe difference is that client applications does not need to trust proper "append-only" permissions were enforced on server side but they will be have the chance to detect any tampering while in the former approach, it won't be noticeable
- mathnmusic 5y agoUsers just need to insert signed data into the database for tamper-proofing.
- dillondoyle 5y agothat's basically what I do in bigquery sometimes just with a time or timestamp column 'last_updated' and a uuid