Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules

On 16/05/2024 17:08, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 16 May 2024, at 15:54, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:33 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>> Ok, yeah, I can see that now. Here's a new version to address that. I
>>> merged ENC_SSL_NEGOTIATED_SSL and ENC_SSL_DIRECT_SSL to a single method,
>>> ENC_SSL. The places that need to distinguish between them now check
>>> conn-sslnegotiation. That seems more clear now that there is no fallback.
>>
>> Unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, we should
>> expedite getting this committed so that it is included in beta1.
>> Release freeze begins Saturday.
>
> +1. Having reread the thread and patch I think we should go for this one.

Yep, committed. Thanks everyone!

On 15/05/2024 21:24, Jacob Champion wrote:
> This assertion seems a little strange to me:
>
>> if (conn->sslnegotiation[0] == 'p')
>> {
>> ProtocolVersion pv;
>>
>> Assert(conn->sslnegotiation[0] == 'p');
>
> But other than that nitpick, nothing else jumps out at me at the moment.

Fixed that. It was a leftover, I had the if-else conditions the other
way round at one point during development.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)