Re: Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL feature comparison - Part 2
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL feature comparison - Part 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1192130747.19081.63.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL feature comparison - Part 2 ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL feature comparison - Part 2
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 14:53 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 10/11/07, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote: > > Postgresql too has this functionality and it seems to be as flexible and > > configurable as Oracle's. > > Not exactly. Oracle auditing uses autonomous transactions and > actually logs attempts to change data as well as changes themselves > whereas Postgres would only log to a table on commit. In Postgres, > you have to specifically write a trigger which simulates an autonomous > transaction using dblink. > Very true. Also, I find it awkward and difficult to do things like: * audit data being _read_ * if using logging options to audit, it's almost impossible to separate the audit trails from other log entries * if auditing using a mechanism other than the postgres log, you can't record statements, e.g. "DROP TABLE" or "ALTER USER ... PASSWORD ...". I would like postgres to have a really good auditing system. For me, it's one of the most important features that postgresql doesn't already have. Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: