Re: mysql proxy - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Subject | Re: mysql proxy |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20070828144930.GA847@phlogiston.dyndns.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: mysql proxy ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: mysql proxy
(Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org>)
Re: mysql proxy (Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org>) Re: mysql proxy (Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org>) Re: mysql proxy ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>) |
List | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:31:32AM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > > Why build it specifically into the app when lower level systems, like > databases or their drivers, can log it for you? If the database is doing this for you in any processed way, then to me it's part of the application. I wouldn't advocate putting extra code out in the database client to do it, if that's what you're asking. > It doesn't do exactly that. It does exactly what I suggested: logs all changes to a table in a generic way -- i.e. Slony doesn't need to know about your application in order to replicate your data. > PostgreSQL cannot provide true auditing > without significant custom work. Audit triggers must be autonomous, > which can only be performed in PostgreSQL via a dblink. 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. It doesn't exist today -- the framework does, and that's it. My point was merely that making a generic auditing framework that fits inside PostgreSQL is possible, and it doesn't require any proxy between the database client and the back end. > I may be mistaken, but on one hand you seem to basically be saying > is that one should research their app and design what is > appropriate for them. On the other hand, you're saying that even > if they research their app and choose to use the MySQL proxy > method, they're wrong in doing so. 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. The reason I'm arguing against such a capability is that it looks to me like an immense man in the middle attack just itching to happen. I think it's a misfeature, for that reason. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca Users never remark, "Wow, this software may be buggy and hard to use, but at least there is a lot of code underneath." --Damien Katz
pgsql-advocacy by date: