Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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