On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Also, this isn't really a good argument against using uniform names
> for parameters that every implementation is certain to have, like
> ssl_key_file.
Even then, it's not that hard to imagine minor variations between what
different implementations will accept. The most obvious difference is
probably that they might expect different file formats, but it's also
possible that a Windows-specific implementation might allow omitting
the file extension while some other implementation does not, for
example. I agree that it would probably be fairly low-risk to use one
parameter for the key file for every implementation, but I suggest
that it would be cleaner and less prone to confusion if we enforce a
full separation of parameters. That also spares us having to make a
judgement call about which parameters have semantics close enough that
we need not separate them.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
