Robert Treat wrote:
> On Friday 29 December 2006 14:49, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > entirely.
> > >
> > > 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.
> given options like --enable-dtrace and --with-libedit-preferred, I don't find
> this argument compelling...
Keep in mind it took years to get OpenSSL support up to the level we
have it now. It took SSL experts coming in and out of our development
process to get it 100% feature-complete. Doing this for another
library, I am afraid, isn't trivial, unlike the above options.
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-12-30 04:39:40|
|Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-12-30 04:08:04|
|Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint|