Re: SSL information view

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSL information view
Date: 2015-04-09 15:46:35
Message-ID: 20150409154635.GC9764@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-04-09 15:56:00 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2015-04-09 13:31:55 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > + <row>
> > > +
> > <entry><structname>pg_stat_ssl</><indexterm><primary>pg_stat_ssl</primary></indexterm></entry>
> > > + <entry>One row per connection (regular and replication), showing
> > information about
> > > + SSL used on this connection.
> > > + See <xref linkend="pg-stat-ssl-view"> for details.
> > > + </entry>
> > > + </row>
> > > +
> >
> > I kinda wonder why this even separate from pg_stat_activity, at least
> > from the POV of the function gathering the result. This way you have to
> > join between pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_ssl which will mean that the
> > two don't necessarily correspond to each other.
> >
>
> To keep from "cluttering" pg_stat_activity for the majority of users who
> are the ones not actually using SSL.

I'm not sure that's actually a problem. But even if, it seems a bit
better to return the data for both views from one SRF and just define
the views differently. That way there's a way to query without the
danger of matching the wrong rows between pg_stat_activity & stat_ssl
due to pid reuse.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-04-09 16:05:00 Re: FPW compression leaks information
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-04-09 15:32:23 Re: Shouldn't CREATE TABLE LIKE copy the relhasoids property?