From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Support for Secure Transport SSL library on macOS as OpenSSL alternative |
Date: | 2018-03-06 22:18:09 |
Message-ID: | 4A957133-3B7E-4056-88BB-6A730B21CC18@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 06 Mar 2018, at 22:08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 3/4/18 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> Do I think this patch is realistic to target for v11? Well. Given where we
>>> are in the cycle, I don’t think any new TLS implementation going in is
>>> realistic at this point since none of the proposed ones have had enough tyre
>>> kicking done. That might change should there be lots of interest and work
>>> started soon, but as has been discussed elsewhere recently the project has
>>> limited resources. I have time to work on this, and support reviewers of it,
>>> but that’s only piece of the puzzle.
>
>> I think it would be best if both this patch and the GnuTLS patch are
>> moved to the next CF and are attacked early in the PG12 cycle.
>
> +1. I think it's fairly important that those two get reviewed/committed
> in the same cycle, in case we need to adjust the relevant APIs.
I completely agree with all of the above.
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tels | 2018-03-06 22:25:48 | Re: [WIP PATCH] Index scan offset optimisation using visibility map |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-06 21:42:39 | Re: Re: BUGFIX: standby disconnect can corrupt serialized reorder buffers |