Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)
Date: 2015-05-05 19:16:59
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/4/15 8:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't follow this logic. The concerns raised above are about changing
> our in-core logging. We haven't got in-core auditing and so I don't see
> how they apply to it.

How is session "auditing" substantially different from statement logging?

I think it is not, and we could tweak the logging facilities a bit to
satisfy the audit trail case while making often-requested enhancement to
the traditional logging use case as well at the same time.

At least no one has disputed that yet. The only argument against has
been that they don't want to touch the logging.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-05-05 19:21:32 Re: BRIN range operator class
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-05-05 19:08:23 Re: BRIN range operator class