On 09.03.23 14:54, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 9 Mar 2023, at 14:45, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> How about we just hardcode "openssl" here instead? We could build that array dynamically, of course, but maybe we
leavethat until we actually have a need?
>
> At least for 16 keeping it hardcoded is an entirely safe bet so +1 for leaving
> additional complexity for when needed.
I have committed it like this.
I didn't like the other variants, because they would cause the openssl
line to stick out for purely implementation reasons (e.g., we don't have
a line "compression: YES (lz4)". If we get support for another ssl
library, we can easily reconsider this.
