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


From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>,Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Date: 2006-12-29 20:00:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> > 4) GNUTLS development seems more active? OpenSSL has been in a frozen/mature
> >    state for a while. I don't understand why OpenSSL is still labelled as
> >    0.9.x, which might indicate alpha quality, under heavy development.
> > 
> > I don't find the reasons too compelling - but they are points to
> > consider.
> 5) GNUTLS does not run well under all of our supported platforms.

While I don't disagree about that, I would like to reiterate that I
wouldn't advocate or even suggest dropping OpenSSL support or removing
OpenSSL as the default.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-12-29 20:28:32
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Previous:From: Roman KononovDate: 2006-12-29 19:54:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and confusing

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group