On 1/23/18 21:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:08:37PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 1/22/18 02:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> However there is as well the argument that this list's contents are not
>>> directly used now, and based on what I saw from the MacOS SSL and GnuTLS
>>> patches that would not be the case after either.
>>
>> Right, there is no facility for negotiating the channel binding type, so
>> a boolean result should be enough.
>
> I am not completely convinced either that we need to complicate the code
> to handle channel binding type negotiation.
>
>> In which case we wouldn't actually need this for GnuTLS yet.
>
> Sure. This depends mainly on how the patch for Mac's Secure Transport
> moves forward.
Moved to next CF along with those other two patches.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
