| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> |
| Cc: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct SSL connection and ALPN loose ends |
| Date: | 2024-06-25 16:05:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+kMNP8S_T2rUNJTuCw93W+HkCwvfBuj17D_Fj3UxAxwGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:20 AM Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 09:37, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> "SSL". Technically, the proper term is TLS, and even the document refers to "IANA TLS ALPN Protocol IDs" (TLS, not SSL).
>> I would not die on that hill, however, going for tlsnegotiation would look better than sslnegotiation.
>
> +1 again, unusual to use SSL when this really is TLS.
This was sort of litigated last ye-(checks notes) oh no, three years ago:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CE12DD5C-4BB3-4166-BC9A-39779568734C%40yesql.se
I'm your side when it comes to the use of the TLS acronym, personally,
but I think introducing a brand new option that interfaces with
sslmode and sslrootcert and etc. while not being named like them would
be outright unhelpful. And the idea of switching everything to use TLS
in docs seemed to be met with a solid "meh" on the other thread.
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2024-06-25 16:10:06 | Re: Injection point locking |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-06-25 15:59:01 | Re: Backporting BackgroundPsql |