Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: libpq 8.4 beta1: $PGHOST complains about missing root.crt

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martin Pitt <mpitt(at)debian(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq 8.4 beta1: $PGHOST complains about missing root.crt
Date: 2009-04-14 03:18:48
Message-ID: 4CD87123-75D7-4DB4-A1FE-3FC2B70E808C@hagander.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On 14 apr 2009, at 04.33, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I would actually call the two parameters 'verify-cert' and 'verify- 
>>> cn',
>>> and document that they also have "require" behavior.  Obviously you
>>> can't verify certificates unless you require SSL.
>>
>> I would prefer having "verify", "verify-no-cn" and "no-verify" or
>> something like that. Making it the "default choice" to have  
>> verification
>> enabled, and very clear that you're turning something off if you're  
>> not.
>> And then just map require to verify. Or they could be "require-no-cn"
>> and "require-no-cert" perhaps?
>>
>> ("default choice" only for those using ssl of course - we'd still  
>> have
>> "disable" as the default *value* of the parameter)
>
> I think the "no" options are odd because they have _negative_
> designations.

That's the intention. When you're turning off something, I think it  
makes sense to use "no"....

/Magnus


In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Martin PittDate: 2009-04-14 07:50:38
Subject: Re: libpq 8.4 beta1: $PGHOST complains about missingroot.crt
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-04-14 02:33:07
Subject: Re: libpq 8.4 beta1: $PGHOST complains about missing root.crt

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group