On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 01:16:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Looking at pgaudit and the other approaches to auditing which have been >> developed (eg: applications which sit in front of PG and essentially >> have to reimplement large bits of PG to then audit the commands sent >> before passing them to PG, or hacks which try to make sense out of log >> files full of SQL statements) make it quite clear, in my view, that >> attempts to bolt-on auditing to PG result in a poorer solution, from a >> technical perspective, than what this project is known for and capable >> of. To make true progress towards that, however, we need to get past >> the thinking that auditing doesn't need to be in-core or that it should >> be a second-class citizen feature or that we don't need it in PG. > > Coming in late here, but the discussion around how to maintain the > auditing code seems very similar to how to handle the logical > replication of DDL commands. First, have we looked into hooking > auditing into scanning logical replication contents, and second, how are > we handling the logical replication of DDL and could we use the same > approach for auditing?
Auditing needs to trace read-only events, which aren't reflected in logical replication in any way. I think it's a good idea to try to drive auditing off of existing machinery instead of inventing something new - I suggested plan invalidation items upthread. But I doubt that logical replication is the thing to attach it to. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
