Re: audit table containing Select statements submitted

Thank you all for the effort you put into response.

The biggest thing I want to avoid isn't so much having to parse through
the log files but to avoid turning on such extensive logging altogether.

I am not sure what kind of additional load logging to this extent may
add.

Looks like I am not going to have much in the way of alternative.

Maybe some day.

Good news is that most access is via Web Interface and I capture most
activity that way.

Again thank you all.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:03 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com; Andrew Dunstan; Hogan, James F. Jr.;
pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] audit table containing Select statements
submitted

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Hmmm... well why don't we add log_line_suffix :)

Doesn't help; you'd also need logic in there to quote any XML tags
appearing in the message text. At that point, adding a
"log_line_suffix" is a transparent pretense of generality --- what
you might as well do is just have a full-fledged "emit the log in XML"
switch.

(I concur with Andrew's comments that this is pretty silly, unless
someone wants to go to the further work of XML-ifying the message
contents to some reasonable extent. If you are going to have to write a
parser to make sense of the message contents, it is really pretty lame
to claim that you can't cope with parsing the current log format as-is.)

regards, tom lane