Re: SSL information view
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SSL information view |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20150409154635.GC9764@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SSL information view (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: SSL information view
|
Список | 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@anarazel.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: