Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL
Date: 2014-05-04 12:58:33
Message-ID: 20140504125833.GC2556@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Abhijit Menon-Sen (ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> At 2014-05-02 14:22:23 -0400, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net wrote:
> > I'm aware and I really am not convinced that pushing all of this to
> > contrib modules using the hooks is the right approach- for one thing,
> > it certainly doesn't seem to me that we've actually gotten a lot of
> > traction from people to actually make use of them and keep them
> > updated.
>
> For what it's worth, I greatly appreciate *having* the hooks. Without
> them, it would have been much more difficult to prototype pgaudit, and
> it would have been impossible to do so in a way that could be used with
> 9.3/9.4.

I'm perfectly fine w/ having the hooks and they're great for exactly the
reasons you point out- it's at least *possible* to add some of this
without having to custom compile the backend. That doesn't mean it's
what we should hang our hat on as the 'one true solution'.

> > having to combine event triggers with various hooks just doesn't
> > strike me as a great design.
>
> Suggestions are welcome, but I have to say that I'm not a big fan of
> reinventing what event trigger give us in the way of deparsing either.

No, I wouldn't want us to reinvent or duplicate code either.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-05-04 13:49:27 Re: 9.4 release notes
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-05-04 12:52:42 Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL