Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.3.96.980603115123.8597R-100000@hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] keeping track of connections (Hal Snyder <hal@enteract.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Hal Snyder wrote: > > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:37:58 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org> > > Cc: maillist@candle.pha.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@hub.org > > Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org > > > On Wed, 3 June 1998, at 01:05:17, David Gould wrote: > > > > > I am curious, what is it you are trying to accomplish with this? Are you > > > trying to build a persistant log that you can query later for billing > > > or load management/capacity planning information? Are you trying to monitor > > > login attempts for security auditing? Are you trying to catch logins in > > > real time for some sort of middleware integration? > > > > The problem is that when I do a process listing for the postgres user, > > I see many backends. There's no (convenient) way to see what those > > backends are doing, what db they're connected to or the remote > > host/postgres user. > > > > My required functionality is this: a list of all backends and > > connection details. IP, queries issued, listens/notifications > > requested/served, bytes transfered, postgres user, db, current query, > > client version, etcetcetc. > .... > > Can backend monitoring be compatible with one or more extant > monitoring techniques? > > 1. syslog > 2. HTML (like Apache's real time status) I like this method the best...it makes it easier for clients to monitor as well, without having access to the machines...but does it pose any security implications?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: