From: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: libpq compression |
Date: | 2012-06-17 16:58:53 |
Message-ID: | 4FDE0CCD.3070102@timbira.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17-06-2012 12:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client
>>> mirroring ssl_ciphers?
>>
>> Dunno, do we need one? I am not sure what the cipher negotiation process
>> looks like or which side has the freedom to choose.
>
Both. Client sends a cipher list and the server determines which cipher is
used getting the first supported cipher in the client list.
> I haven't looked into the details, but it seems reasonable that
> *either* side should be able to at least define a list of ciphers it
> *doens't* want to talk with.
>
+1.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2012-06-17 17:00:33 | Re: REVIEW: Optimize referential integrity checks (todo item) |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2012-06-17 16:52:36 | Re: libpq compression |