| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martin Pitt <mpitt(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq 8.4 beta1: $PGHOST complains about missing root.crt |
| Date: | 2009-04-14 03:18:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4CD87123-75D7-4DB4-A1FE-3FC2B70E808C@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 14 apr 2009, at 04.33, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I would actually call the two parameters 'verify-cert' and 'verify-
>>> cn',
>>> and document that they also have "require" behavior. Obviously you
>>> can't verify certificates unless you require SSL.
>>
>> I would prefer having "verify", "verify-no-cn" and "no-verify" or
>> something like that. Making it the "default choice" to have
>> verification
>> enabled, and very clear that you're turning something off if you're
>> not.
>> And then just map require to verify. Or they could be "require-no-cn"
>> and "require-no-cert" perhaps?
>>
>> ("default choice" only for those using ssl of course - we'd still
>> have
>> "disable" as the default *value* of the parameter)
>
> I think the "no" options are odd because they have _negative_
> designations.
That's the intention. When you're turning off something, I think it
makes sense to use "no"....
/Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Pitt | 2009-04-14 07:50:38 | Re: libpq 8.4 beta1: $PGHOST complains about missing root.crt |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-04-14 02:33:07 | Re: libpq 8.4 beta1: $PGHOST complains about missing root.crt |