Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension
Date: 2016-02-05 19:08:43
Message-ID: 20160205190843.GY3331@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > An in-core auditing solution would provide us with proper grammar
> > support, ability to directly mark objects for auditing in the catalog,
> > allow us to much more easily maintain auditing capability over time as
> > a small incremental bit of work for each new feature (with proper
> > in-core infrastructure for it) and generally be a far better technical
> > solution. Leveraging the GRANT system is quite cute, and does work, but
> > it's certainly non-intuitive and is only because we've got no better
> > way, due to it being implemented as an extension.
>
> I think one additional item needed would be the ability for the audit
> logs to be sent to a different location than the standard logs.

Indeed, reworking the logging to be supportive of multiple destinations
with tagging of the source, etc, has long been a desire of mine (and
others), though that's largely independent of auditing itself.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-02-05 20:25:44 Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)
Previous Message Joe Conway 2016-02-05 19:04:42 Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension