Re: A successor for PQgetssl

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A successor for PQgetssl
Date: 2006-04-17 16:24:40
Message-ID: 20060417162440.GH4474@ns.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog(at)svana(dot)org) wrote:
> Seriously, if people want to do really sophisticated things with the
> SSL library, they should setup s_tunnel instead. If we wanted to let

I certainly agree with all the rest but I'm just not sure I can agree
with you here. While s_tunnel is nice it's not always an option and I
think it *would* be nice to have Postgres support things like CRLs and
OCSP but more from the server-side of things than the client-side.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-04-17 16:47:13 Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with PITR?
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-17 16:14:42 Re: A successor for PQgetssl