Re: pg_stat_ssl additions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2018-11-28 21:01:31
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 Sergei Agalakov 2018-11-28 21:18:56 [PROPOSAL] extend the object names to the qualified names in pg_stat_statements
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-11-28 20:58:09 Re: chained transactions