From: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2014-06-23 10:51:53 |
Message-ID: | 20140623105153.GJ31357@toroid.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(I'm replying as co-author of pgaudit.)
At 2014-06-23 19:15:39 +0900, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> You added this into CF, but its patch has not been posted yet. Are you
> planning to make a patch?
It's a self-contained contrib module. I thought Ian had posted a
tarball, but it looks like he forgot to attach it (or decided to
provide only a Github link). I've attached a tarball here for
your reference.
> > Planned future improvements include:
> >
> > 1. Additional logging facilities, including to a separate audit
> > log file and to syslog, and potentially logging to a table
> > (possibly via a bgworker process). Currently output is simply
> > emitted to the server log via ereport().
> >
> > 2. To implement per-object auditing configuration, it would be nice
> > to use extensible reloptions (or an equivalent mechanism)
>
> Is it possible to implement these outside PostgreSQL by using hooks?
There are some unresolved questions with #2 because the extensible
reloptions patch seems to have lost favour, but I'm pretty sure we
could figure out some alternative.
> If not, it might be better to implement audit feature in core from the
> beginning.
Sure, we're open to that possibility. Do you have any ideas about what
an in-core implementation should do/look like?
-- Abhijit
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pgaudit.tgz | application/x-gtar | 13.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2014-06-23 11:06:59 | Re: Allowing join removals for more join types |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-23 10:48:07 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |