From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2015-02-20 03:20:51 |
Message-ID: | 54E6A813.7070605@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/18/15 10:29 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:25 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>>> The pg_audit doesn't log BIND parameter values when prepared statement is used.
>>> Seems this is an oversight of the patch. Or is this intentional?
>>
>> It's actually intentional - following the model I talked about in my
>> earlier emails, the idea is to log statements only.
>
> Is this acceptable for audit purpose in many cases? Without the values,
> I'm afraid that it's hard to analyze what table records are affected by
> the statements from the audit logs. I was thinking that identifying the
> data affected is one of important thing for the audit. If I'm malicious DBA,
> I will always use the extended protocol to prevent the values from being
> audited when I execute the statement.
I agree with you, but I wonder how much is practical at this stage.
Let me think about it and see what I can come up with.
--
- David Steele
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2015-02-20 03:24:32 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-02-20 03:01:12 | Re: Exposing the stats snapshot timestamp to SQL |