Re: Default names for CRL and CA files in the backend

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2017, at 09:28, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> - the server, i.e. signed by a certificate in the server's
>> - <filename>root.crt</filename> file.
>> + the server, i.e. signed by a certificate in the server's root certificate
>> + file.
>> </para>
>> Do you think it would be worth adding a mention to ssl_ca_file in the
>> server's postgresql.conf? With a link to it?
>
> I tried but couldn’t come up with anything that didn’t seem to confuse it
> rather than make it clearer. Suggestions welcome, else we can leave it.

By appending the following? "The server root's certificate is defined
in ssl_ca_file in its configuration". Though this makes the style of
the paragraph heavy I agree.

>> + In earlier versions of PostgreSQL, the name of this file was
>> + hard-coded as <filename>root.crl</filename>. As of
>> + <productname>PostgreSQL</> 9.2 it is a configuration parameter.
>> No need to mention PostgreSQL twice here? Or the first one should use
>> the markup productname.
>
> From reading, it seems the common thing is to write the full name when
> referencing a version, even when superfluous like here. Personally I don’t
> have strong opinions, I was just trying to follow the style.

OK, I am fine with your suggestion here.

> Re the productname markup, that raises an interesting question. There are more
> than 2000 <productname>PostgreSQL</> in the docs, and somewhere just south of
> 250 plain PostgreSQL (not counting old release notes and titles etc). Should
> all occurrences of PostgreSQL, in text content, be wrapped in productname tags?
> It’s probably more for consistency than anything else, and I’m happy to do the
> work, but only if it’s deemed worthwhile to do so.

That's another discussion anyway. Your patch looks fine to me for what
it focuses on.
--
Michael