|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: ssl passphrase callback|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 01:01:17PM -0600, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> We had this
> discussion in relation to archive_command years ago, and decided on a
> shell command as the best API.
> I don't recall that from back then, but that was a long time ago.
> But it's interesting that you mention it, given the number of people I have
> been discussing that with recently, under the topic of changing it from a shell
> command into a shared library API (with there being a shell command as one
> possible implementation of course).
> One of the main reasons there being to be easily able to transfer more state
> and give results other than just an exit code, no need to deal with parameter
> escaping etc. Which probably wouldn't matter as much to an SSL passphrase
> command, but still.
I get the callback-is-easier issue with shared objects, but are we
expecting to pass in more information here than we do for
archive_command? I would think not. What I am saying is that if we
don't think passing things in works, we should fix all these external
commands, or something. I don't see why ssl_passphrase_command is
different, except that it is new. Or is it related to _securely_
Also, why was this patch posted without any discussion of these issues?
Shouldn't we ideally discuss the API first?
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
|Next Message||Dilip Kumar||2019-11-13 02:59:41||Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum|
|Previous Message||Kyotaro Horiguchi||2019-11-13 02:51:02||Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest"|