On 4/2/18 02:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It seems to me that this routine should be logically put into
> be-secure-common.c so as future SSL implementations can use it. This
> makes the code more consistent with the frontend refactoring that has
> happened in f75a959. I would not have bothered about this refactoring
> if be-secure-openssl.c did not exist yet, but as it does I think that we
> should bite the bullet, and do that for v11 so as a good base is in
> place for the future.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services