Re: mysql proxy

On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> Note that I wasn't suggesting that the person who wrote the code
> should also do the auditing

OK

> just that it should be _built in_ to the application.

Why build it specifically into the app when lower level systems, like
databases or their drivers, can log it for you?

> It doesn't strike me as hugely complicated to add
> triggers to a system that captures changes (even in a generic way --
> we know this from the Slony project, which does exactly that).

It doesn't do exactly that. PostgreSQL cannot provide true auditing
without significant custom work. Audit triggers must be autonomous,
which can only be performed in PostgreSQL via a dblink.

> Adding some piece of intermediate stuff that could interfere with the
> ACIDity of the system (and that's what this scripty thing is
> advertised as) surely can't be the remedy for the problem where you
> think your developed code needs an audit trail?

I wouldn't personally take that approach, but it would work. I may be
mistaken, but on one hand you seem to basically be saying is that one
should research their app and design what is appropriate for them. On
the other hand, you're saying that even if they research their app and
choose to use the MySQL proxy method, they're wrong in doing so.

I'd just leave it simply as, if MySQL proxy meets your needs and
design objectives, and you are aware of its issues and limitations, go
ahead and use it.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/