Re: Setting min/max TLS protocol in clientside libpq

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, cary huang <hcary328(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Setting min/max TLS protocol in clientside libpq
Date: 2020-04-26 12:01:04
Message-ID: 2266d9f2-70fe-3156-8fea-e3403461cbdc@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-04-24 14:03, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2020, at 12:56, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Can we reconsider whether we really want to name the new settings like "sslminprotocolversion", or whether we could add some underscores, both for readability and for consistency with the server-side options?
>
> That was brought up by Michael in the thread, but none of us followed up on it
> it seems. The current name was chosen to be consistent with the already
> existing ssl* client-side settings, but I don't really have strong opinions on
> if that makes sense or not. Perhaps use ssl_m{in|max}_protocolversion to make
> it more readable?

The names on the backend side are ssl_{min|max|_protocol_version.

> The attached renames the userfacing setting, but keeps the environment variable
> without underscores as most settings have env vars without underscores.

Keeping the environment variable as is seems fine (also consistent with
"channel_binding").

I would, however, prefer to also rename the internal symbols.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Fan 2020-04-26 12:35:31 Re: Subplan result caching
Previous Message David Rowley 2020-04-26 09:48:51 Re: Subplan result caching