| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSL/TLS instead of SSL in docs |
| Date: | 2021-06-25 02:45:44 |
| Message-ID: | YNVDWM5CMeGEv8SU@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 01:53:47PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The attached v3 does it this way.
Thanks. Mostly what was on message upthread. Applied this one.
> Yes, there are a few but not too many. Whenever the protocol is refererred to
> and not the concept of an encrypted connection, just the applicable term is
> used.
Makes sense.
> The attached v3 wraps SSL/TLS in a single acronym block, which for sure is more
> pleasing to the eye when working with the docs, but I still have no idea which
> version technically is the most correct.
I am not sure 100% sure, but I would still vote in favor of this
change, perhaps with a small addition of one extra entry for SSL/TLS
directly on the acronym's page for consistency. What you have here
sounds rather fine to me.
> It doesn't, I'm just not convinced that the acronyms page is consulted all too
> frequently anymore to provide much value. I might be totally wrong though.
> Either way, thats (potentially) for a separate discussion.
No idea about that.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-25 03:08:29 | Re: pgsql: Fix pattern matching logic for logs in TAP tests of pgbench |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-25 02:31:11 | Re: strange case of "if ((a & b))" |