From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: remove internal support in pgcrypto? |
Date: | 2021-11-02 10:06:46 |
Message-ID: | 9D84C398-FF4B-49EB-8764-65D0AC392B41@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 30 Oct 2021, at 14:11, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 24.08.21 11:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> So I'm tempted to suggest that we remove the built-in, non-OpenSSL cipher and hash implementations in pgcrypto (basically INT_SRCS in pgcrypto/Makefile), and then also pursue the simplifications in the OpenSSL code paths described in [0].
>
> Here is a patch for this.
+1 on this patch, it does what it says on the tin and lays good foundations for
further work on modernizing pgcrypto. If anything, maybe the hard OpenSSL
requirement should be advertised earlier in the documentation?
Should we consider bumping the version number of the module? While it's true
that everyone will have to recompile anyways, and there are no changes in
exposed functionality, it might be an easier sell for those it without OpenSSL
if the version nunber indicates a change.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-02 10:07:18 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
Previous Message | tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-11-02 09:45:27 | RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |