Re: PostgreSQL Auditing

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Auditing
Date: 2016-02-02 16:35:25
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYXn6cwm+fT6DnADyq_Y8g=rE=eSW9N2uSo-60-HTYUjQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Michael Banck
<michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:24:23AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> PostgreSQL has auditing. It is available now, just not in core. Postgis
>> isn't available in core either and it seems to do just fine.
>
> I don't really buy that argument. For one, PostGIS has a pretty narrow
> functional use-case (spatial), while auditing is a horizontal use-case
> that could be required for any kind of database usage.

If you're saying you think the user base for pgaudit will be larger
than the user base for PostGIS, color me doubtful.

> Now, whether or not the currently submitted approach actually meets the
> above rubber-stamp requirements is a different story, but at least I
> think it would be quite useful to ship auditing capabilites in the
> distribution.

That is a sensible position. :-)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-02-02 16:39:03 Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2016-02-02 16:34:28 Re: PostgreSQL Auditing