Re: pg_stat_ssl additions

From: Lou Picciano <LouPicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_stat_ssl additions
Date: 2018-11-29 00:27:00
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

As we do make significant(?) use of the ssl-ish stuff - though not of the views - should I weigh in?

We do make some not-insignificant use of the sslinfo data, but I see little issue with adding underscores. In fact, ssl-ville is replete with underscores anyway.

Further, I’m not sure exposing details about Cert Issuer, etc. to non-privileged users is much of an issue. For the most part, in most use cases, ‘users’ should/would want to know what entity is the issuer. If we’re talking about client certs, most of this is readily readable anyway, no?

More from PostgreSQL == better.

Lou Picciano

PS - How you guys doin’? It’s been a while.

> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Any thoughts from others about whether to rename clientdn to client_dn
>>> to allow better naming of the new fields?
>> Makes sense. The SSL acronyms can get very complex.
> +1. It seems unlikely to me that there are very many applications out
> there that have references to this view, so we can probably get away
> with rationalizing the field names.
> regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2018-11-29 00:40:19 Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-11-29 00:16:02 Re: A WalSnd issue related to state WALSNDSTATE_STOPPING