Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: 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 20:14:15
Message-ID: aa16d04bf822b16e593a2de09766fa256526946f.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2021-06-03 at 15:53 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Yeah, but it's annoying to have to start every talk I give touching
> this
> subject with the slide that says "When we say SSL we really means
> TLS".
> Maybe release 15 would be a good time to rename user-visible option
> names etc, with support for legacy names.

Sounds good to me, though I haven't looked into how big of a diff that
will be.

Also, do we have precedent for GUC aliases? That might be a little
weird.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-06-03 20:21:22 Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2021-06-03 20:04:43 Make unlogged table resets detectable