> On 1 Sep 2025, at 03:58, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> When looking into why the SNI tests failed on Windows I think I found a
>> pre-existing issue that we didn't have tests for, which my patch added tests
>> for and thus broke.
>>
>> The test I added was to check restarting and reloading with ssl passphrase
>> commands (which we do have testcoverage for) with a subsequent connection test
>> to ensure it didn't just work to start the cluster.
>
> Would this part be better if extracted from the main patch and then
> backpatched? Even if not backpatched, a split would be cleaner on
> HEAD, I assume, leading to less fuzz with the main patch.
Yes, that's my plan, just wanted to float it here first to see if I was
thinking about it all wrong. I will raise it on its own thread on -hackers.
The backpatchable portion is probably limited to a docs entry clarifying the
behaviour on Windows.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
