On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:26 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 2/17/15 10:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> I vote to include pgaudit in 9.5, albeit with any changes. In >> particular, David may have some changes to recommend, but I haven't >> seen a spec or a patch, just a new version of code (which isn't how we >> do things...). > > I submitted the new patch in my name under a separate thread "Auditing > extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)" (54e005cc.1060...@pgmasters.net)
I played the patch version of pg_audit a bit and have basic comments about its spec. The pg_audit doesn't log BIND parameter values when prepared statement is used. Seems this is an oversight of the patch. Or is this intentional? The pg_audit cannot log the statement like "SELECT 1" which doesn't access to the database object. Is this intentional? I think that there are many users who want to audit even such statement. Imagine the case where you call the user-defined function which executes many nested statements. In this case, pg_audit logs only top-level statement (i.e., issued directly by client) every time nested statement is executed. In fact, one call of such UDF can cause lots of *same* log messages. I think this is problematic. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
