From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS |
Date: | 2006-05-06 21:26:10 |
Message-ID: | 200605062126.k46LQAe16714@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 02:47:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > > If you like I can split it into two patches, one patch splits the openssl
> > > stuff out of the main files and a second which adds gnutls support.
> >
> > Yes, I understood that, but we now have duplicate files for secure
> > connections, meaning we have double maintenance in some cases.
>
> Hmm, I see your point. I guess that's an unavoidable side-effect of the
> process :(. However, judging from the CVS logs, these have not been files
> with a high change rate. I think it's worth it but I can imagine other
> people see that differently.
>
> There is not a lot of code can be shared. What can be already is eg.
> prepare_for_client_read and client_read_ended, the names of the files
> used, EPIPE handling, etc.
[ Discussion moved to hackers.]
The only other case I can think of where we support multiple libraries
for licensing reasons is readline/libedit, but in that case libedit has
the same API as readline, so we don't require much code duplication,
must some configure magic.
I see the problem with the OpenSSL license:
http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
Of course, we are trading a BSD license with advertizing clause with an
LGPL license. I guess it makes sense.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-05-06 21:48:52 | Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-06 20:46:15 | Re: intarray internals |