From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension |
Date: | 2015-05-28 01:48:17 |
Message-ID: | 556673E1.8090109@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 05/27/2015 06:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> While I certainly appreciate the support, I don't believe auditing will
> be able to work as an extension over the long term and if the community
> is unwilling or unable to accept steps in that direction through contrib
> modules or even changes to core to improve what we are able to provide
> in this area,
It seems to me that perhaps the solution is then to pull pg_audit into
user space and instead work on a general solution (an API? custom
backend?) that provides what is needed.
> I have very serious doubts about the willingness of
> organizations (particularly those in the financial and government space)
> to continue to seek out and support PostgreSQL as a viable open source
> alternative to the commerical RDBMS's which have had these capabilities
> for years.
This may or may not be true considering and I am not sure it really
matters in the context of this argument.
>
> I'm, again, not suggesting that a contrib module is going to be a
> workable long-term solution for all use-cases, but it would solve quite
> a few and would be known to be supported, and to have the support of the
> community, if released as part of PostgreSQL.
If the demand for this module is there, it will receive the support it
needs regardless if it is in core.
> These are extremely
> serious organizations who care about the reputation of PostgreSQL and
> the community for delivering quality software. I certainly have no
> intention to tarnish that in any way as it would be quite detrimental to
> myself and the community. If that means reverting a patch of my own, or
> one which I have supported, so be it.
I can not speak to the quality of the patch. I can speak to what others,
people of repute in this community speak of this patch. The leaning
tower seems as if it is clearly in the, "we might want to think about
reverting this".
As it is currently an extension, it does not need to be in core. If this
extension reaches a point where it needs to be in core to achieve some
level of integration not currently provided then we can evaluate that
problem. Currently, that is not the case.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-28 02:02:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-28 01:38:40 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-28 01:52:51 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-28 01:38:40 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add pg_audit, an auditing extension |