From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: SSL patch |
Date: | 1999-07-24 16:40:30 |
Message-ID: | 1743.932834430@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> As it is right now, it should work in all combinations except a 6.6 client
> compiled with SSL support connecting to a pre-6.6 server. It already
> falls-back if the server is 6.6 (without SSL support). And the 6.6 client
> compiled without SSL works.
Actually, it shouldn't matter whether the server is 6.6-without-SSL
or pre-6.6. At least in the way I envisioned it, they'd act the same.
> There is not yet a way in the client to specify that SSL connection is
> required (it can be specified on the server). I'm planning to put that in,
> but I thought it would be good to get the "base code" approved first - which
> proved to be a good thing :-)
> I'll see if I can wrap something up before I leave on vacation (leaving
> pretty soon, be gone about a week). Not sure I'll make it, though. Should I
> do this as a patch against what I have now, or keep sending in "the one big
> patch"?
I don't think anyone has applied your patch yet, so why don't you just
resubmit the whole thing after cleaning up the loose ends.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 1999-07-24 17:00:45 | Re: [SQL] inserts/updates problem under stressing ! |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-07-24 16:32:49 | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Security and Impersonation |