Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: mysql proxy

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: mysql proxy
Date: 2007-08-28 16:21:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> It does exactly what I suggested: logs all changes to a table in a
> generic way

That is not proper auditing.  Proper auditing must log attempts to
access and modify data... which PostgreSQL cannot

> Well, wait a minute.  You're now arguing that auditing under Postgres
> requires writing stuff to an independent system, which entails
> significant custom work.  But it isn't at all obvious to me that a
> proxy-based approach won't require significant custom work too.

Agreed, there is no free lunch.

> I don't care what people do with their data, especially if they're
> using MySQL.  What I am arguing against is adding something like this
> proxy capability to Postgres.

I agree on that point.  I certainly wouldn't like to see anyone expend
significant effort to make this work for Postgres.

Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            |

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2007-08-28 16:25:49
Subject: Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2007-08-28 16:17:51
Subject: Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group