| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is it worth accepting multiple CRLs? |
| Date: | 2021-01-19 08:01:35 |
| Message-ID: | e5538639-c232-e631-c533-aa6449b8ba09@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-01-19 01:17, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Thank you for the information. The only reason for sharing the same
> variable for both file and directory is to avoid additional variable
> only for this reason. I'll post a new version where new GUC
> ssl_crl_path is added.
Okay, I look forward to that patch.
> By the way we can do the same thing on CA file/dir, but I personally
> think that the benefit from the specify-by-directory for CA files is
> far less than CRL files. So I'm not going to do this for CA files for
> now.
Yeah, that seems not so commonly used.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-01-19 08:06:00 | Re: popcount |
| Previous Message | yuzuko | 2021-01-19 07:57:27 | Re: Release SPI plans for referential integrity with DISCARD ALL |