On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 01:59:09PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@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.
I was suggesting we could track write events via logical replication and
then we only have to figure out auditing of read events, which would be
easier.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription +