Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
От | Andreas Karlsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5951fcd2-393d-f90c-4780-2f6e4c94693e@proxel.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/20/2017 02:56 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Tomas Vondra > <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> If I get it right we ignore gnutls and use openssl (as it's the first >> checked in #ifdefs). Shouldn't we enforce in configure that only one TLS >> implementation is enabled? Either by some elaborate check, or by >> switching to something like >> >> --with-ssl=(openssl|gnutls) > > WIth potential patches coming to use macos' SSL implementation or > Windows channel, there should really be only one implementation > available at compile time. That's more simple as a first step as well. > So +1 for the --with-ssl switch. I have now implemented this in the attached patch (plus added support for channel binding and rebased it) but I ran into one issue which I have not yet solved. The script for the windows version takes the --with-openssl=<path> switch so that cannot just be translated to a single --with-ssl switch. Should to have both --with-openssl and --with-gnutls or --with-ssl=(openssl|gnutls) and --with-ssl-path=<path>? I also do not know the Windows build code very well (or really at all). Andreas
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: