| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| 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 17:39:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20181128173928.GR3415@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 20/11/2018 22:41, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >>> - Adds new fields to pg_stat_ssl: issuerdn and clientserial. These
> > >>> allow uniquely identifying the client certificate. AFAICT, these are
> > >>> the most interesting pieces of information provided by sslinfo but not
> > >>> in pg_stat_ssl. (I don't like the underscore-free naming of these
> > >>> fields, but it matches the existing "clientdn".)
> > >> clientdn, clientserial, issuerdn are the fields about client
> > >> certificates. Only the last one omits prefixing "client". But
> > >> "clientissuerdn" seems somewhat rotten... Counldn't we rename
> > >> clientdn to client_dn?
> > > I'd prefer renaming as well, but some people might not like that.
> >
> > 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.
Agreed.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-11-28 18:06:16 | Re: PostgreSQL Limits and lack of documentation about them. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-11-28 17:34:54 | Re: pg_stat_ssl additions |