Re: ssl passphrase callback

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 09:51:33PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 01:01:17PM -0600, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:24 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> > One of the main reasons there being to be easily able to transfer more state
> > and give results other than just an exit code, no need to deal with parameter
> > escaping etc. Which probably wouldn't matter as much to an SSL passphrase
> > command, but still.
>
> I get the callback-is-easier issue with shared objects, but are we
> expecting to pass in more information here than we do for
> archive_command?  I would think not.  What I am saying is that if we
> don't think passing things in works, we should fix all these external
> commands, or something.   I don't see why ssl_passphrase_command is
> different, except that it is new.

Or is it related to _securely_passing something?

> Also, why was this patch posted without any discussion of these issues?
> Shouldn't we ideally discuss the API first?

I wonder if every GUC that takes an OS command should allow a shared
object to be specified --- maybe control that if the command string
starts with a # or something.