On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:22 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> There are additionally two more comments in the SSL tests that could
> be removed, I guess. Here's a v4, with Robert's latest suggestion
> added.
LGTM.
> I am not sure that we need to change this historic term, TBH. Perhaps
> it would be shorter to just rip off the trust method from the tree
> with a deprecation period but that's not something I'm much in favor
> off either (I use it daily for my own stuff, as one example).
> Another, more conservative approach may be to make it a developer-only
> option and discourage more its use in the docs.
I don't think we should get rid of anonymous connections; there are
ways to securely authorize a client connection without ever
authenticating the entity at the other end. I'd just like the server
to call them what they are, because I think the distinction is
valuable for DBAs who are closely watching their systems.
--Jacob
