Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On ons, 2012-02-08 at 09:16 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Yes, ignoring a missing file in a security context is definitely not good.
>> It should throw an error.
>> We have a few bad defaults from the old days around SSL for this, but if it
>> requires breaking backwards compatibility to get it right, I think we
>> should still do it.
> Btw., should we also consider making similar changes on the libpq side?
I think that breaking compatibility of libpq's behavior is a whole lot
harder sell than changing things in a way that only affects what people
have to put into postgresql.conf. We've always treated the latter as
something that can change across major versions.
In particular, I observe that we get pushback anytime we break something
in a way that makes SSL config files be required on the client side;
see bug #6302 for most recent example.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-02-29 19:25:57|
|Subject: Re: controlling the location of server-side SSL files|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-02-29 19:18:44|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|