All of it works quite well and is decently performant. We can ask questions like, how many domains did we own on March 13th, 2024? Or look at the entire lifecycle of a domains ownership (owned, released, re-acquired, transfered, etc).
The big challenge and core issue we discovered though is that our data sucks. QAing this new capability has been a moving target. Tons of mistakes over time that were partially undone or manually undone without proper audit trail. Ghost records. Rapid changes by our bulk editor tool a->b->a->b that need to get squashed into just a->b. The schema of our database has evolved over time, too, which has made this tough to view a consistent representation of things even if the fields storing that data were renamed. When the system was first introduced, we had ~5 columns to track. Now we have over 30.
Suffice to say if I were to do things over again, I would implement a much better change tracking system that bakes in tools to clean/erase/undo/soft-delete/hard-delete mistakes so that future me (now) wouldn't have so many edge cases to deal with in this time traveling system. I'd also like to just make the change tracking capable of time travel itself, versus building that as a bolt-on side table that tracks and works from the change table. Transitioning to an EAV (entity-attr-value) approach is on my spike list, too. Makes it easier to just reduce (key,val) tuples down into an up to date representation versus looking at diffs of before/after.
Really interesting stuff. I learned a lot about this from Clojure/Datomic and think its quite neat that so many Clojurists are interested in and tackling this problem. As the author notes in this post, XTDB is another one.