Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:20:31AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-02-19 10:14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > We have already hesitated to record DDL changes for > > logical replication because of the code size, maintenance overhead, and > > testing required. > > I'm not sure what

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:20:13AM -0500, David Steele wrote: > On 2/19/16 10:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >> Understood. My point is that there is a short list of read events, and > >> many DDL events. We have already hesitated to record DDL changes for > >>

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-02-19 10:14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We have already hesitated to record DDL changes for > logical replication because of the code size, maintenance overhead, and > testing required. I'm not sure what you're referring to here? It'd be some relatively minor code surgery to also

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread David Steele
On 2/19/16 10:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Understood. My point is that there is a short list of read events, and >> many DDL events. We have already hesitated to record DDL changes for >> logical replication because of the code size, maintenance overhead, and >>

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:54:17PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Understood. My point is that there is a short list of read events, and > > many DDL events. We have already hesitated to record DDL changes for > > logical replication because of the code size,

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Understood. My point is that there is a short list of read events, and > many DDL events. We have already hesitated to record DDL changes for > logical replication because of the code size, maintenance overhead, and > testing required. DDL is already captured using the

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread David Steele
On 2/19/16 10:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:19:58AM -0500, David Steele wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I agree that DDL/DML

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:19:58AM -0500, David Steele wrote: > > 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. > > I agree that DDL/DML audit logging requires a lot of the same >

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-19 Thread David Steele
On 2/17/16 10:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 01:59:09PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 01:16:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: Looking at pgaudit and the other approaches

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 01:59:09PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Momjian 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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Bruce Momjian 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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-05 Thread Stephen Frost
All, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > OK, I'll bite: I'm worried that this patch will be a maintenance > burden. It's easy to imagine that changes to core will result in the > necessity or at least desirability of changes to pgaudit, but I'm > definitely not prepared to insist that

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-05 Thread Stephen Frost
* Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: > On 02/05/2016 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > An in-core auditing solution would provide us with proper grammar > > support, ability to directly mark objects for auditing in the catalog, > > allow us to much more easily maintain auditing capability

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-05 Thread Joe Conway
On 02/05/2016 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > An in-core auditing solution would provide us with proper grammar > support, ability to directly mark objects for auditing in the catalog, > allow us to much more easily maintain auditing capability over time as > a small incremental bit of work for

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > An in-core auditing solution would provide us with proper grammar > support, ability to directly mark objects for auditing in the catalog, > allow us to much more easily maintain auditing capability over time as > a small

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/3/16 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: People who are interested in audit are also understandably leery of >downloading code from an untrusted source. Both PGXN and GitHub are The >Wild West as far as conservative auditors are concerned. I hate to be rude here, but that's not my problem. You

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > As for PGXN being an untrusted source, that's something that it's in the > project's best interest to try and address somehow, perhaps by having > formally audited extensions. Amazon already has to do this to some > degree before an extension can

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread David Steele
Hi Robert, Thank you for replying. On 2/1/16 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > OK, I'll bite: I'm worried that this patch will be a maintenance > burden. It's easy to imagine that changes to core will result in the > necessity or at least desirability of changes to pgaudit, but I'm > definitely

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:37 AM, David Steele wrote: > On 2/1/16 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> OK, I'll bite: I'm worried that this patch will be a maintenance >> burden. It's easy to imagine that changes to core will result in the >> necessity or at least desirability of

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread David Steele
On 2/3/16 11:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > That's good to hear, but again, it's not enough for a core submission. > Code that goes into our main git repository needs to be "the > prettiest". I mean it's not all perfect of course, but it should be > pretty darn good. I still think it's pretty darn

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread David G. Johnston
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:37 AM, David Steele wrote: > > On 2/1/16 11:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > >> In > >> saying that it's arbitrary, I'm not saying it isn't *useful*. I'm > >> saying there

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:38 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: >> Right now that may be true, although it wouldn't surprise me very much >> to find out that other people have written such extensions and they >> just didn't get as much press. Also, consider the future. It

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 02/03/2016 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: I'll be the first to admit that the design is not the prettiest. Trying It's entirely reasonable for the community NOT to want to privilege one implementation over another. This, not so much. No, this is ABSOLUTELY critical. Suppose EnterpriseDB

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread David Steele
On 1/31/16 8:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Steele wrote: >> The attached patch implements audit logging for PostgreSQL as an >> extension. I believe I have addressed the concerns that were raised at >> the end of the 9.5 development cycle. > > This patch got no feedback at all during the

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
David Steele wrote: > On 1/31/16 8:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I'm giving > > this patch some more time by moving it to next commitfest instead. > > I was under the mistaken impression that the CF was two months long so I > appreciate getting a little more time. Yeah, sorry to disappoint

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Anyway I think the tests here are > massive and the code is not; perhaps people get the mistaken impression > that this is a huge amount of code which scares them. Perhaps you could > split it up in (1) code and (2) tests, which wouldn't

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread David Steele
[I pulled this back in from the other thread that got started. This happened because my email to pgsql-hackers bounced but was also sent to Alvaro who replied to that message not the later one that went through to hackers.] On 2/1/16 3:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Anyway, what would *you* do

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread David Steele
On 2/1/16 4:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Anyway I think the tests here are >> massive and the code is not; perhaps people get the mistaken impression >> that this is a huge amount of code which scares them. Perhaps you could >> split it up in

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 02/01/2016 08:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: It also appears to me that if we did want to do that, it would need quite a lot of additional cleanup. I haven't dug in enough to have a list of specific issues, but it does look to me like there would be quite a bit. Maybe that'd be worth doing if

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread Noah Misch
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:59:01PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Anyway I think the tests here are massive I would not want to see fewer tests. When I reviewed a previous incarnation of pgaudit, the tests saved me hours of writing my own. > and the code is not; Nah; the patch size category is

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-02-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 01/31/2016 05:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >David Steele wrote: >> >>The attached patch implements audit logging for PostgreSQL as an >> >>extension. I believe I have addressed the

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-01-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/31/2016 05:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >David Steele wrote: > >>The attached patch implements audit logging for PostgreSQL as an > >>extension. I believe I have addressed the concerns that were raised at > >>the end of the 9.5 development cycle. > > > >This patch

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-01-31 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 01/31/2016 05:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: David Steele wrote: The attached patch implements audit logging for PostgreSQL as an extension. I believe I have addressed the concerns that were raised at the end of the 9.5 development cycle. This patch got no feedback at all during the

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Audit Extension

2016-01-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
David Steele wrote: > The attached patch implements audit logging for PostgreSQL as an > extension. I believe I have addressed the concerns that were raised at > the end of the 9.5 development cycle. This patch got no feedback at all during the commitfest. I think there is some interest on