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.
Bruce Momjian <
bruce@momjian.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
