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 <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@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 >
