Message-ID: <54E4AAC3.9060302@pgmasters.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:07:47 -0500
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
CC: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2)
References: <54E005CC.1060605@pgmasters.net>
 <CA+U5nMJvWi5gKnEY1FKPKfLKapn5dmO0+54YdH4gUkO5MFJtiw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+U5nMJvWi5gKnEY1FKPKfLKapn5dmO0+54YdH4gUkO5MFJtiw@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=A2739CF3
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="Um9XjOj4Rt9Q0JE5olU9Rjl1jnCNMtMB4"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--Um9XjOj4Rt9Q0JE5olU9Rjl1jnCNMtMB4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2/18/15 8:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 15 February 2015 at 02:34, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:=

>=20
>> I've posted a couple of messages over the last few weeks about the wor=
k
>> I've been doing on the pg_audit extension.  The lack of response could=

>> be due to either universal acclaim or complete apathy, but in any case=
 I
>> think this is a very important topic so I want to give it another try.=

>=20
> You mentioned you had been following the thread for some time and yet
> had not contributed to it. Did that indicate your acclaim for the
> earlier patch, or was that apathy? I think neither.

In my case it actually was acclaim.  I was happy with the direction
things were going and had nothing in particular to add - and I didn't
think a +1 from me was going to carry any weight with the community.

I can see now that everyone's opinion matters here, so I'll be more
active about weighing in when I think something is valuable.

>=20
> People have been working on this feature for >9 months now, so you
> having to wait 9 days for a response is neither universal acclaim, nor
> apathy. I've waited much longer than that for Stephen to give the
> review he promised, but have not bad mouthed him for that wait, nor do
> I do so now. In your first post you had removed the author's email
> addresses, so they were likely unaware of your post. I certainly was.

I understand that, but with the CF closing I felt like I had to act.
Abhijit's last comment on the thread was that he was no longer going to
work on it in relation to 9.5.  I felt that it was an important feature
(and one that I have a lot of interest in), so that's when I got involved=
=2E

I posted two messages, but I only addressed one of them directly to
Abhijit.  As you said, I'm new here and I'm still getting used to the
way things are done.

>> I've extensively reworked the code that was originally submitted by
>> 2ndQuandrant.  This is not an indictment of their work, but rather an
>> attempt to redress concerns that were expressed by members of the
>> community.  I've used core functions to determine how audit events
>> should be classified and simplified and tightened the code wherever
>> possible.  I've removed deparse and event triggers and opted for metho=
ds
>> that rely only on existing hooks.  In my last message I provided
>> numerous examples of configuration, usage, and output which I hoped
>> would alleviate concerns of complexity.  I've also written a ton of un=
it
>> tests to make sure that the code works as expected.
>=20
> Some people that have contributed ideas to this patch are from
> 2ndQuadrant, some are not. The main point is that we work together on
> things, rather than writing a slightly altered version and then
> claiming credit.
>=20
> If you want to help, please do. We give credit where its due, not to
> whoever touched the code last in some kind of bidding war. If we let
> this happen, we'd generate a flood of confusing patch versions and
> little would ever get committed.

Agreed, and I apologize if I came off that way.  It certainly wasn't my
intention.  I was hesitant because I had made so many changes and I
wasn't sure how the authors would feel about it.  I wrote to them
privately to get their take on the situation.

> Let's keep to one thread and work to include everybody's ideas then
> we'll get something useful committed.

I'm a little confused about how to proceed here.  I created a new thread
because the other patch had already been rejected.  How should I handle
that?

--=20
- David Steele
david@pgmasters.net


--Um9XjOj4Rt9Q0JE5olU9Rjl1jnCNMtMB4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=h7i4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Um9XjOj4Rt9Q0JE5olU9Rjl1jnCNMtMB4--