| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Hogan, James F(dot) Jr(dot)" <JHogan(at)seton(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: audit table containing Select statements submitted |
| Date: | 2006-05-12 23:37:27 |
| Message-ID: | 44651C37.1060203@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Hmmm ... I don't see this as a problem. Just stick the whole message into
>> a single XML field. This is one area where XML is easier that SQL; since
>> it's a document format, it has no problem with a great big blob of text.
>> "Unstructured Data" and all that nonsense.
>
>> Then whatever utility the user uses to *read* the XML can parse the message
>> according to the user's desires. It'll still be an improvement over the
>> current format for log digestion, since it will become easy to separate
>> the message from the prefix and tag (which currently it's not).
>
> This argument strikes me as nonsense. You've got a utility that's smart
> enough to parse the very-free-format message bodies, but it's going to
> be too confused by the log line prefix?
Not that Tom's dissent isn't enough, but I have to agree. It is very
easy to set up a parser for the log and XML is just going to add noise.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-05-12 23:51:30 | Re: audit table containing Select statements submitted |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-05-12 23:23:32 | Re: audit table containing Select statements submitted |