| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com" <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |
| Date: | 2022-02-04 18:33:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYu0bU8TyAZfjKHmVytLBUzocyb_jxQur8pd_yVnU=7SQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 02:33:37PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > As a philosophical matter, I don't think it's great for us - or the
> > Internet in general - to be too dependent on OpenSSL. Software
> > monocultures are not great, and OpenSSL has near-constant security
> > updates and mediocre documentation. Now, maybe anything else we
>
> I don't think it is fair to be criticizing OpenSSL for its mediocre
> documentation when the alternative being considered, NSS, has no public
> documentation. Can the source-code-defined NSS documentation be
> considered better than the mediocre OpenSSL public documentation?
I mean, I think it's fair to say that my experiences with trying to
use the OpenSSL documentation have been poor. Admittedly it's been a
few years now so maybe it's gotten better, but my experience was what
it was. In one case, the function I needed wasn't documented at all,
and I had to read the C code, which was weirdly-formatted and had no
comments. That wasn't fun, and knowing that NSS could be an even worse
experience doesn't retroactively turn that into a good one.
> For the record, I do like the idea of adding NSS, but I am concerned
> about its long-term maintenance, we you explained.
It sounds like we come down in about the same place here, in the end.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-02-04 18:36:46 | Re: Unclear problem reports |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-02-04 18:22:00 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |