| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP |
| Date: | 2017-01-04 15:17:23 |
| Message-ID: | 22292.1483543043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Indeed, this is important functionality that people are using.
Who exactly are these people, and why haven't they complained about how
crappy the support is now? I'm *completely* unconvinced by the argument
that the way it has worked in the past is an important feature that we
have to preserve. It's an accident that it worked at all, and as far as
I can tell it didn't work very well. Have you tried it? On my machine,
it could not accept a passphrase at all unless I didn't detach the
postmaster from the terminal, which is entirely silly as a production
solution.
In short, I reject the above argument 100%. I'm all for inventing
a solution in which passphrases work usefully, but don't tell me
that what we had was such a solution.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-01-04 15:17:49 | Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-04 15:14:29 | Re: [PATCH] Reload SSL certificates on SIGHUP |