| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |
| Date: | 2021-06-03 20:55:45 |
| Message-ID: | 93659.1622753745@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> It might also put us a hard spot if the next TLS spec ends up being called
> something other than TLS? It's clearly happened before =)
Good point. I'm inclined to just stick with the SSL terminology.
>> Also, do we have precedent for GUC aliases? That might be a little
>> weird.
> I don't think we do currently, but I have a feeling the topic has surfaced here
> before.
We do, look for "sort_mem" in guc.c. So it's not like it'd be
inconvenient to implement. But I think user confusion and the
potential for the new terminology to fail to be any more
future-proof are good reasons to just leave the names alone.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-06-03 20:57:38 | Re: PATCH: generate fractional cheapest paths in generate_orderedappend_path |
| Previous Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-06-03 20:52:12 | Re: PATCH: generate fractional cheapest paths in generate_orderedappend_path |