Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL
Date: 2014-12-16 21:45:42
Message-ID: 20141216214542.GF25679@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 16 December 2014 at 18:28, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > For the sake of the archives, the idea I had been trying to propose is
> > to use a role's permissions as a mechanism to define what should be
> > audited. An example is:
>
> My understanding is that was done.

Based on the discussion I had w/ Abhijit on IRC, and what I saw him
commit, it's not the same. I've been trying to catch up with him on IRC
to get clarification but havn't managed to yet.

Abhijit, could you comment on the above (or, well, my earlier email
which had the details)? It's entirely possible that I've completely
misunderstood as I haven't dug into the code yet but rather focused on
the documentation.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2014-12-16 22:03:42 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-12-16 21:44:20 Re: [alvherre@2ndquadrant.com: Re: no test programs in contrib]