On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1 July 2014 18:32, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> Having functions to control the auditing would work, but it's not >> exactly the ideal approach, imv, and > > What aspect is less than ideal? > >> the only reason it's being >> discussed here is because it might be a way to allow an extension to >> provide the auditing- not because it's actually a benefit to anyone. > > That is a false statement, as well as being a personal one. It's sad > to hear personal comments in this.
I am not sure that it was personal, but I agree it's false. > Auditing should, in my view, always be > optional, since not everyone needs it. Cryptographic functions aren't > in-core either and I'm guessing various security conscious > organizations will use them and be happy. How does pgaudit differ from > pgcrypto? +1. > Given the tone of this discussion, I don't see it going anywhere > further anytime soon - that is good since there is no big rush. > pgaudit is a sincere attempt to add audit functionality to Postgres. > If you or anyone else wants to make a similarly sincere attempt to add > audit functionality to Postgres, lets see the design and its > connection to requirements. Agreed all around. -- 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
