I'll argue that this is bad design. It works as long as the amount of data is small, but even then taking a low-data scenario and building lots of views or triggers just seems a bit weird. When I do that, it works for a month and then falls over in maintenance because you've got a table-based database where none of the important data is in a table?! This is not a design that will be flexible if needs change even slightly.

Immutable design is extremely powerful, but it needs to be a first-class citizen to get full benefit. Clojure's data structures are a great study in this - they squeeze a shocking amount of efficiency out because they have guarantees that the underlying data is immutable (eg, copy-and-slightly-update a large object is effectively a free operation, we have old & new objects available for comparison and that is lovely). Mimicking the same style of programming in, say, Java would gain none of the performance advantages or the logical conveniences. I expect it would be an uncomfortable programmer experience.

Here I think it would be more effective to design the tables as-usual and keep a log of all the changes separately. There is a chance the log will get out of sync with the active tables but frankly if that is a problem go use something designed with immutability in mind and don't twist PostgreSQL into pretzel shapes.