On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:00:49AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:49:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote in
> > > > Are you saying we should _require_ clientcert=verify-full when 'cert'
> > > > authentication is used? I don't see the point of that --- I just
> > > > updated the docs to say doing so was duplicate behavior.
> > >
> > > I don't suggest changing the current behavior. I'm saying it is the
> > > way it is working and we should correctly error-out that since it
> > > doesn't work as specified.
>
> Sorry, I mistead you. I don't suggest verify-full is needed for cert
> authentication. I said we should just reject the combination
> cert+veriry-ca.
OK.
> > Uh, I don't understand what 'combination the same way with
> > "cert"+"no-verify"'. Right now, cert with no clientcert/verify line
> > works just fine. Is "no-verify" something special? Are you saying it
> > is any random string that would generate an error?
>
> It was delimited as "We should reject (that)" "that combination
> (=cert+ferify-ca)" "the same way(=error-out)" "with cert+no-verify".
OK, and that is what your patch does, right? And we should error out on
"with cert+no-verify" just like "with cert+XXXXXX", right? I don't see
"no-verify" mentioned anywhere in our docs.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
