Re: Thoughts on a "global" client configuration?

From: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a "global" client configuration?
Date: 2025-10-13 20:30:52
Message-ID: aO1hfONHrPXEJ3an@msg.df7cb.de
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Re: Robert Haas
> So you support calling it libpq.so.5 forever, no matter how much we change?

I would say SONAME/ABI/API breakages are not a tool to promote better
SSL settings. If we want to move to sslmode=verify-full by default, we
should just do that. I don't see why adding extra ABI/API pain would
make that transition any better for users.

We can move to libpq6 if there are technical reasons, but the general
pain will be long-lasting until the whole world has caught up. (Debian
etc can switch pretty easily, but there's a gazillion of third-party
things.)

Christoph

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-10-13 20:33:01 Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart
Previous Message David Rowley 2025-10-13 20:29:40 Re: Improve docs for n_distinct_inherited