Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYxfe+yo1WkXEgSA9tEp86gYS3DkRuNmGpZbjVnEuhZmA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:28 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 29/11/2018 13:28, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > Unfortunately it needs to be rebased one more time, could you do this? Also I'm
> > wondering about this:
> >
> >> I'm moving this patch forward to CF 2018-09, since it's not going to be
> >> ready for -07, and we're still whacking around some channel binding
> >> details, which would potentially interfere with this patch.
> >
> > Were you talking about this one [1]? As far as I see it's not a concern
> > anymore? I'll move it to the next CF.
>
> I have decided that I don't want to pursue this patch anymore.  It has
> served its purpose having allowed us to refine the SSL library
> abstractions so that alternative implementations such as macOS Secure
> Transport can go ahead.  But officially supporting GnuTLS as an
> alternative to OpenSSL doesn't seem to have any practical advantages, so
> I don't foresee this getting committed into PostgreSQL core.

Hmm, I find that a bit disappointing. I'm not in a position to take up
the patch right now, unfortunately.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Limits and lack of documentation about them.
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change "checkpoint starting" message to use "wal"