2 ms·
> this is partly because most people don't consider 'temporality' as a feature a database should offer Not sure on your definition of 'people', but I think eve
by refset 2y ago
> this is partly because most people don't consider 'temporality' as a feature a database should offer
Not sure on your definition of 'people', but I think every business ultimately wants solid auditing and reporting capabilities across their IT systems.
These concerns are only increasing in importance as new regulations demand stronger data provenance, but their implementation shouldn't be reliant on the process of "proper schema design" to get things right first time.
Databases built for the modern world should be making this stuff bulletproof and easy.
(I work on XTDB - and if Postgres already supported temporal tables I possibly wouldn't!)
- armincerf 2y agoOh, I totally agree that 'people' (which I guess refers to any potential user of a DBMS) often do need temporality (or even bitemporality), but they don't consider that the database should have this baked in, or they just don't consider it much at all. I'm fully on board with XTDB and similar solutions for this reason. Most people still gravitate towards Postgres and similar databases without giving much thought to these temporal challenges, even though those options lack a robust solution for the temporal issues that so many systems demand.