On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> It does exactly what I suggested: logs all changes to a table in a
> generic way
That is not proper auditing. Proper auditing must log attempts to
access and modify data... which PostgreSQL cannot
> Well, wait a minute. You're now arguing that auditing under Postgres
> requires writing stuff to an independent system, which entails
> significant custom work. But it isn't at all obvious to me that a
> proxy-based approach won't require significant custom work too.
Agreed, there is no free lunch.
> I don't care what people do with their data, especially if they're
> using MySQL. What I am arguing against is adding something like this
> proxy capability to Postgres.
I agree on that point. I certainly wouldn't like to see anyone expend
significant effort to make this work for Postgres.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
