Re: pg_stat_ssl additions

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
>