Uwe Grauer schrieb:

> OK, i also give my 2cents:
>
> You have the Problem, that you need records witch really were deleted,
> it's what i would call bad database design.
> Why not do it in the following way:
> Do not physically delete records. Mark them deleted.
> This way you can still have the log of user-deletes. Sometimes
> you will need it because for example in the bankers-business you have
> to be able to tell from whom and when a record was deleted.
> There are soo many possibilities to do this kind of work, that
> i do not want to cont them now, but i really had to do it this way.

And another 2c.

If you don't want to mark them deleted and move (insert) them into a
separate shadow table it's quite easy to set up the trigger that way
that it will have a look at the seconds table if the record was already
copied before writing it in there.

I do just agree with Uwe that anything else if bad db design.

Luc.