> On 06 Mar 2018, at 22:08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 3/4/18 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> Do I think this patch is realistic to target for v11? Well. Given where we
>>> are in the cycle, I don’t think any new TLS implementation going in is
>>> realistic at this point since none of the proposed ones have had enough tyre
>>> kicking done. That might change should there be lots of interest and work
>>> started soon, but as has been discussed elsewhere recently the project has
>>> limited resources. I have time to work on this, and support reviewers of it,
>>> but that’s only piece of the puzzle.
>
>> I think it would be best if both this patch and the GnuTLS patch are
>> moved to the next CF and are attacked early in the PG12 cycle.
>
> +1. I think it's fairly important that those two get reviewed/committed
> in the same cycle, in case we need to adjust the relevant APIs.
I completely agree with all of the above.
cheers ./daniel
