Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension
Date: 2016-02-02 02:24:09
Message-ID: 56B01349.6060809@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/1/16 4:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> .... Anyway I think the tests here are
>> massive and the code is not; perhaps people get the mistaken impression
>> that this is a huge amount of code which scares them. Perhaps you could
>> split it up in (1) code and (2) tests, which wouldn't achieve any
>> technical benefit but would offer some psychological comfort to
>> potential reviewers. You know it's all psychology in these parts.
>
> Perhaps the tests could be made less bulky. We do not need massive
> permanent regression tests for a single feature, IMO.

I'd certainly like to but pgaudit uses a lot of different techniques to
log various commands and there are a number of GUCs. Each test provides
coverage for a different code path.

I'm sure they could be reorganized and tightened up a but I don't think
by a whole lot.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-02-02 02:42:16 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Previous Message David Steele 2016-02-02 02:10:35 Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension