Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend

> On 28 Jan 2022, at 15:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>>> Kinda makes me question the wisdom of starting to depend on NSS. When openssl
>>> docs are vastly outshining a library's, that library really should start to
>>> ask itself some hard questions.
>
> Yeah, OpenSSL is very poor, so being worse is not good.
>
>> Sadly, there is that.  While this is not a new problem, Mozilla has been making
>> some very weird decisions around NSS governance as of late.  Another data point
>> is the below thread from libcurl:
>>
>>    https://curl.se/mail/lib-2022-01/0120.html
>
> 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.

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