Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9377.1516210780@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Question for the group: We currently have a number of config settings > named ssl_*. Some of these are specific to OpenSSL, some are not, namely: > # general > ssl > ssl_dh_params_file > ssl_cert_file > ssl_key_file > ssl_ca_file > ssl_crl_file > # OpenSSL > ssl_ciphers > ssl_prefer_server_ciphers > ssl_ecdh_curve > # GnuTLS (proposed) > gnutls_priorities > (effectively a combination of ssl_ciphers and ssl_prefer_server_ciphers) > Should we rename the OpenSSL-specific settings to openssl_*? > It think it would be better for clarity, and they are not set very > commonly, so the user impact would be low. Yeah, I think only the "general" parameters would be set by very many people. +1 for renaming the OpenSSL-only parameters. I don't know too much about the internals here, so looking at your list, I wonder whether "ssl_dh_params_file" ought to be treated as implementation-specific too. The other four files seem essential to any feature-complete implementation, but is that one? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: