Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL
От | Abhijit Menon-Sen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140623183306.GK31357@toroid.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
At 2014-06-23 08:50:33 -0400, sfrost@snowman.net wrote: > > I'm not a huge fan of adding this as a contrib module I added it to the CF because we're interested in auditing functionality for 9.5, and as far as I can tell, there's nothing better available. At the moment, the contrib module has the advantage that it exists :-) and works with 9.[34] (and could be made to work with 9.2, though I didn't bother for the initial submission). > unless we can be > quite sure that there's a path forward from here to a rework of the > logging in core which would actually support the features pg_audit is > adding, without a lot of pain and upgrade issues. What sort of pain and upgrade issues did you have in mind? > I'd expect a catalog table or perhaps changes to pg_class (maybe other > things also..) to define what gets logged.. Please explain? (I wish extensions were able to add reloptions. That would have made it relatively easy for us to implement per-object audit logging.) > I'd also like to see the ability to log based on the connecting user, > and we need to log under what privileges a command is executing I imagine it's not useful to point out that you can do the former with pgaudit (using ALTER ROLE … SET), and that we log the effective userid for the latter (though maybe you had something more in mind)… > and, really, a whole host of other things.. …but there's not a whole lot I can do with that, either. Is the minimal set of auditing features that we would need in-core very different from what pgaudit already has? -- Abhijit
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: