Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Date: 2018-11-29 22:56:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:28 AM Peter Eisentraut
> > <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I have decided that I don't want to pursue this patch anymore. It has
> >> served its purpose having allowed us to refine the SSL library
> >> abstractions so that alternative implementations such as macOS Secure
> >> Transport can go ahead. But officially supporting GnuTLS as an
> >> alternative to OpenSSL doesn't seem to have any practical advantages, so
> >> I don't foresee this getting committed into PostgreSQL core.
> > Hmm, I find that a bit disappointing. I'm not in a position to take up
> > the patch right now, unfortunately.
> Yeah, I was disappointed too. OpenSSL has had a squirrelly enough track
> record that it'd be nice not to be totally dependent on it. But, like
> both of you, I'm not quite motivated enough to take up the patch myself.

I'm also pretty disappointed by this, although admittedly I think my
interest would be more in adding libNSS support than GnuTLS, but I had
viewed this as a good stepping stone to get there. Perhaps it still can
be though.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2018-11-29 23:00:40 Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2018-11-29 22:53:52 Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?