From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: disabled SSL log_like tests |
Date: | 2025-05-08 13:49:37 |
Message-ID: | 182014.1746712177@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 7 May 2025, at 23:54, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> +# Determine whether this build uses OpenSSL or LibreSSL. As a heuristic, the
>> +# HAVE_SSL_CTX_SET_CERT_CB macro isn't defined for LibreSSL.
>> +my $libressl = not check_pg_config("#define HAVE_SSL_CTX_SET_CERT_CB 1");
> Longer term it would be nice to move this into SSL::Server and have the module
> export a function or symbol which returns the underlying library and version,
> but that's not for this patch.
I was feeling itchy about having two copies of code that looks none
too set-in-stone. Maybe we should just do that. Any preferences
on the API?
>> +# As of 5/2025, LibreSSL doesn't actually work for RSA-PSS certificates.
> Should we add a link to the relevant thread for future readers? OpenBSD refer
> to MARC for archiving which I believe is stable enough for an inclusion.
WFM, I'll make it so.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | torikoshia | 2025-05-08 13:51:38 | Re: RFC: Allow EXPLAIN to Output Page Fault Information |
Previous Message | Ian Lawrence Barwick | 2025-05-08 13:38:04 | Re: regdatabase |