Re: [PATCH] add ssl_protocols configuration option

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alex Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des(at)des(dot)no>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add ssl_protocols configuration option
Date: 2015-01-15 07:17:02
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSQ578-+3ggJdCfWO4G-WW2rA3WKCTayFVZhSkDHHUu+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Alex Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps ssloptions.[ch], unless you plan to add non-option-related code
>>>> there later?
>>>
>>> I don't think anything else than common options-related code fits in
>>> there, so ssloptions.c makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>> BTW, there is no Regent code in your openssl.c, so the copyright
>>>> statement is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Good catch, I just blindly copied that from some other file.
>> There have been arguments in favor and against this patch... But
>> marking it as returned with feedback because of a lack of activity in
>> the last couple of weeks. Feel free to update if you think that's not
>> correct, and please move this patch to commit fest 2014-12.
>
> Attached is a new version that addresses the earlier feedback: renamed
> the added *.[ch] files and removed incorrect copyright line.
>
> I'm moving this to the current CF.
This patch is statuquo since the beginning of this CF, at the
arguments are standing the same. If there is nothing happening maybe
it would be better to mark it as returned with feedback? Thoughts?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-01-15 07:19:08 Re: Fillfactor for GIN indexes
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2015-01-15 07:15:39 EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns