From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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 19:04:42 |
Message-ID: | 56B4F24A.9030704@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
> To make true progress towards that, however, we need to get past
> the thinking that auditing doesn't need to be in-core or that it should
> be a second-class citizen feature or that we don't need it in PG.
+1
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-02-05 19:08:43 | Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-02-05 18:16:25 | Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension |