On 2/18/15 8:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 February 2015 at 02:34, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > >> I've posted a couple of messages over the last few weeks about the work >> I've been doing on the pg_audit extension. The lack of response could >> be due to either universal acclaim or complete apathy, but in any case I >> think this is a very important topic so I want to give it another try. > > You mentioned you had been following the thread for some time and yet > had not contributed to it. Did that indicate your acclaim for the > earlier patch, or was that apathy? I think neither.
In my case it actually was acclaim. I was happy with the direction things were going and had nothing in particular to add - and I didn't think a +1 from me was going to carry any weight with the community. I can see now that everyone's opinion matters here, so I'll be more active about weighing in when I think something is valuable. > > People have been working on this feature for >9 months now, so you > having to wait 9 days for a response is neither universal acclaim, nor > apathy. I've waited much longer than that for Stephen to give the > review he promised, but have not bad mouthed him for that wait, nor do > I do so now. In your first post you had removed the author's email > addresses, so they were likely unaware of your post. I certainly was. I understand that, but with the CF closing I felt like I had to act. Abhijit's last comment on the thread was that he was no longer going to work on it in relation to 9.5. I felt that it was an important feature (and one that I have a lot of interest in), so that's when I got involved. I posted two messages, but I only addressed one of them directly to Abhijit. As you said, I'm new here and I'm still getting used to the way things are done. >> I've extensively reworked the code that was originally submitted by >> 2ndQuandrant. This is not an indictment of their work, but rather an >> attempt to redress concerns that were expressed by members of the >> community. I've used core functions to determine how audit events >> should be classified and simplified and tightened the code wherever >> possible. I've removed deparse and event triggers and opted for methods >> that rely only on existing hooks. In my last message I provided >> numerous examples of configuration, usage, and output which I hoped >> would alleviate concerns of complexity. I've also written a ton of unit >> tests to make sure that the code works as expected. > > Some people that have contributed ideas to this patch are from > 2ndQuadrant, some are not. The main point is that we work together on > things, rather than writing a slightly altered version and then > claiming credit. > > If you want to help, please do. We give credit where its due, not to > whoever touched the code last in some kind of bidding war. If we let > this happen, we'd generate a flood of confusing patch versions and > little would ever get committed. Agreed, and I apologize if I came off that way. It certainly wasn't my intention. I was hesitant because I had made so many changes and I wasn't sure how the authors would feel about it. I wrote to them privately to get their take on the situation. > Let's keep to one thread and work to include everybody's ideas then > we'll get something useful committed. I'm a little confused about how to proceed here. I created a new thread because the other patch had already been rejected. How should I handle that? -- - David Steele da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
