Re: What happened to SSL_CIPHERS?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What happened to SSL_CIPHERS?
Date: 2010-10-29 20:05:32
Message-ID: AANLkTimtEJJzLMcbuMjYOeqAqmX7Ja9dYxnVw-akPJrZ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> But for user-facing parameters I agree we should do it,
> and ssl_ciphers is one of those.

+1.

> In any case, a doc patch would be the right thing for the back branches.

+1.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-29 20:12:42 Re: [PERFORM] typoed column name, but postgres didn't grump
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-10-29 19:46:28 Re: [PERFORM] typoed column name, but postgres didn't grump