Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)
Date
Msg-id 5549172B.70005@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List 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.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: BRIN range operator class
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: BRIN range operator class