Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend

On Fri, Feb  4, 2022 at 01:33:00PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I don't think it is fair to be criticizing OpenSSL for its mediocre
> > documentation when the alternative being considered, NSS, has no public
> > documentation.  Can the source-code-defined NSS documentation be
> > considered better than the mediocre OpenSSL public documentation?
> 
> I mean, I think it's fair to say that my experiences with trying to
> use the OpenSSL documentation have been poor. Admittedly it's been a
> few years now so maybe it's gotten better, but my experience was what
> it was. In one case, the function I needed wasn't documented at all,
> and I had to read the C code, which was weirdly-formatted and had no
> comments. That wasn't fun, and knowing that NSS could be an even worse
> experience doesn't retroactively turn that into a good one.

Oh, yeah, the OpenSSL documentation is verifiably mediocre.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.