Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Date: 2018-01-19 18:55:30
Message-ID: CA+TgmobtcBx4QwEWrtuYb=hsSMMCpmu_7DmyW06=OSDCVApGUQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Also, this isn't really a good argument against using uniform names
> for parameters that every implementation is certain to have, like
> ssl_key_file.

Even then, it's not that hard to imagine minor variations between what
different implementations will accept. The most obvious difference is
probably that they might expect different file formats, but it's also
possible that a Windows-specific implementation might allow omitting
the file extension while some other implementation does not, for
example. I agree that it would probably be fairly low-risk to use one
parameter for the key file for every implementation, but I suggest
that it would be cleaner and less prone to confusion if we enforce a
full separation of parameters. That also spares us having to make a
judgement call about which parameters have semantics close enough that
we need not separate them.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2018-01-19 18:59:27 Re: Built-in connection pooling
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-01-19 18:43:30 Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support