Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend

> On 31 Jan 2022, at 22:32, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-01-31 14:24:03 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 28 Jan 2022, at 15:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I would really, really like to have an alternative to OpenSSL for PG.
>>> I don't know if this is the right thing, though. If other people are
>>> dropping support for it, that's a pretty bad sign IMHO. Later in the
>>> thread it says OpenLDAP have dropped support for it already as well.
>>
>> I'm counting this and Andres' comment as a -1 on the patchset, and given where
>> we are in the cycle I'm mark it rejected in the CF app shortly unless anyone
>> objects.
>
> I'd make mine more a -0.2 or so. I'm concerned about the lack of non-code
> documentation and the state of code documentation. I'd like an openssl
> alternative, although not as much as a few years ago - it seems that the state
> of openssl has improved compared to most of the other implementations.

IMHO I think OpenSSL has improved over OpenSSL of the past - which is great to
see - but they have also diverged themselves into writing a full QUIC
implementation which *I personally think* is a distraction they don't need.

That being said, there aren't too many other options.

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/