Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Felix Lechner <felix(dot)lechner(at)lease-up(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support
Date: 2020-06-27 15:49:40
Message-ID: 20200627154940.GC16644@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:16:26AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Also, wolfSSL is developed by a company and dual GPL/commerical
> > licenses, so it seems like a mismatch to me.
>
> Yeah, that's definitely a factor behind my disinterest in
> making wolfSSL be the only alternative. However, as long as
> it's available on GPL terms, I don't see a problem with it
> being one alternative.

Yeah, I guess it depends on how much Postgres code it takes to support
it. Company-developed open source stuff usually goes into pay mode once
it gets popular, so I am not super-excited to be going in this
direction.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-06-27 16:55:21 Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-06-27 15:16:26 Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support