Thread
-
capturing and storing query statement with rules
Andrew Gould <andrewgould@yahoo.com> — 2003-06-24T20:17:39Z
I would like to create a audit log of update and delete queries against a table. I want the log on the server side, since access will be done using various clients via ODBC. I would like to capture the user, current datetime and the query statement. My thought was to accomplish this by creating a rule that will insert the information into a log table. How can I captures the query statement so that I can place it in a insert query? Is there a variable in the server that holds the query statement as a string? Am I about to go in over my head (again)? Thanks, Andrew
-
Re: capturing and storing query statement with rules
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2003-06-24T20:53:20Z
Guillaume LELARGE wrote: > Le Mardi 24 Juin 2003 20:17, Andrew Gould a écrit : >>I would like to create a audit log of update and >>delete queries against a table. I want the log on the >>server side, since access will be done using various >>clients via ODBC. I would like to capture the user, >>current datetime and the query statement. My thought >>was to accomplish this by creating a rule that will >>insert the information into a log table. > > To be server side, you need to use a trigger and a plpgsql function. On this > page you will find more informations on trigger related functions: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/view.php?version=7.3&idoc=0&file=plpgsql-trigger.html > Perhaps you can compare OLD and NEW rows to know which rows will be updated. > And you'll find at the end of the page how to get current user (current_user > keyword) and current datetime (function now). > >>How can I captures the query statement so that I can >>place it in a insert query? Is there a variable in >>the server that holds the query statement as a string? I think this shows how to do what you want: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-05/msg00301.php HTH, Joe
-
Re: capturing and storing query statement with rules
Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> — 2003-06-24T21:05:25Z
Joe Conway wrote: > Guillaume LELARGE wrote: > >> Le Mardi 24 Juin 2003 20:17, Andrew Gould a écrit : >> >>> I would like to create a audit log of update and >>> delete queries against a table. I want the log on the >>> server side, since access will be done using various >>> clients via ODBC. I would like to capture the user, >>> current datetime and the query statement. My thought >>> was to accomplish this by creating a rule that will >>> insert the information into a log table. >> >> And you'll find at the end of the page how to get current user >> (current_user keyword) and current datetime (function now). >> >>> How can I captures the query statement so that I can >>> place it in a insert query? Is there a variable in >>> the server that holds the query statement as a string? > > I think this shows how to do what you want: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-05/msg00301.php Maybe debug_query_string should be mapped into a variable like CURRENT_USER? Perhaps something like CURRENT_QUERY? Mike Mascari mascarm@mascari.com
-
Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with rules
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2003-06-24T21:07:23Z
(moving to HACKERS) Mike Mascari wrote: > Joe Conway wrote: >>I think this shows how to do what you want: >>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-05/msg00301.php > > Maybe debug_query_string should be mapped into a variable like > CURRENT_USER? Perhaps something like CURRENT_QUERY? > I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? Comments? Joe
-
Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with
Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2003-06-24T21:13:31Z
--On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 14:07:23 -0700 Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote: > (moving to HACKERS) > > Mike Mascari wrote: >> Joe Conway wrote: >>> I think this shows how to do what you want: >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-05/msg00301.php >> >> Maybe debug_query_string should be mapped into a variable like >> CURRENT_USER? Perhaps something like CURRENT_QUERY? >> > > I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at > least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special > keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? > > Comments? I was thinking the same thing. Currently I use the contrib/dblink supplied function, but a firstclass, in the default install, version would be nice. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
-
Re: capturing and storing query statement with rules
Mike Benoit <mikeb@netnation.com> — 2003-06-24T21:27:29Z
http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/tablelog/download/download.php or http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/audittrail/download/download.php?branch=devel I haven't used either, but table_log seems to be one that I may start using in the near future. On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 13:17, Andrew Gould wrote: > I would like to create a audit log of update and > delete queries against a table. I want the log on the > server side, since access will be done using various > clients via ODBC. I would like to capture the user, > current datetime and the query statement. My thought > was to accomplish this by creating a rule that will > insert the information into a log table. > > How can I captures the query statement so that I can > place it in a insert query? Is there a variable in > the server that holds the query statement as a string? > > Am I about to go in over my head (again)? > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Best Regards, Mike Benoit NetNation Communications Inc. Systems Engineer Tel: 604-684-6892 or 888-983-6600 --------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
-
Re: capturing and storing query statement with rules
Guillaume LELARGE <gleu@wanadoo.fr> — 2003-06-24T22:40:28Z
Le Mardi 24 Juin 2003 20:17, Andrew Gould a écrit : > I would like to create a audit log of update and > delete queries against a table. I want the log on the > server side, since access will be done using various > clients via ODBC. I would like to capture the user, > current datetime and the query statement. My thought > was to accomplish this by creating a rule that will > insert the information into a log table. > To be server side, you need to use a trigger and a plpgsql function. On this page you will find more informations on trigger related functions: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/view.php?version=7.3&idoc=0&file=plpgsql-trigger.html Perhaps you can compare OLD and NEW rows to know which rows will be updated. And you'll find at the end of the page how to get current user (current_user keyword) and current datetime (function now). > How can I captures the query statement so that I can > place it in a insert query? Is there a variable in > the server that holds the query statement as a string? > I don't think... or wasn't able to find something like this one in the documentation. Regards. -- Guillaume <!-- http://absfr.tuxfamily.org/ -->.
-
Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with rules
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2003-06-25T14:40:53Z
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at > least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special > keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or required to work 100%, into a supported feature. I don't think debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case. And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query? I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a larger can of worms than you probably think. regards, tom lane
-
Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> — 2003-06-25T14:58:21Z
Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > >>I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at >>least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special >>keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? > > Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or > required to work 100%, into a supported feature. I don't think > debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system > is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case. > And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it > supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query? > > I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a > larger can of worms than you probably think. > Hmmm. Good points. This one may best wait for 7.5 at least. Does it make sense to turn it into a TODO? * promote debug_query_string into a documented, supported feature Anyone who *does* use the function from dblink, please be sure to report circumstances where dblink_current_query() returns something other than what you would expect. Thanks, Joe
-
Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2003-06-25T21:40:47Z
Added to TODO: * Promote debug_query_string into a server-side function current_query() --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Conway wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > > > >>I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at > >>least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special > >>keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? > > > > Not unless you want to promote a quick debugging hack, not expected or > > required to work 100%, into a supported feature. I don't think > > debug_query_string can be relied on to always reflect what the system > > is doing, particularly not in the 3.0 protocol extended-query case. > > And how about when you're executing queries inside a function --- is it > > supposed to tell you about the most closely nested SQL query? > > > > I don't say this is not worth doing --- but I do say you are opening a > > larger can of worms than you probably think. > > > > Hmmm. Good points. This one may best wait for 7.5 at least. Does it make > sense to turn it into a TODO? > > * promote debug_query_string into a documented, supported feature > > Anyone who *does* use the function from dblink, please be sure to report > circumstances where dblink_current_query() returns something other than > what you would expect. > > Thanks, > > Joe > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
-
Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2003-06-27T12:37:11Z
Joe Conway writes: > I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at > least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special > keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? The current statement can be examined using the statistics views and functions. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
-
Re: [GENERAL] capturing and storing query statement with
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2003-06-27T15:05:20Z
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Joe Conway writes: >> I was thinking something similar. This exact question has come up at >> least three times in the last three months. I doubt we'd want a special >> keyword like CURRENT_QUERY, but maybe current_query()? > The current statement can be examined using the statistics views and > functions. That's not very reliable though --- unless the current query has been running for quite a few milliseconds, there's no guarantee it will be reflected in the statistics collector's output. regards, tom lane