On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:44, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of vie sep 23 11:31:37 -0300 2011:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 15:55, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> > This seems strange to me. Why not have a second option to let the user
>> > indicate the desired SSL verification?
>> >
>> > sslmode=disable/allow/prefer/require
>> > sslverify=none/ca-if-present/ca/full
>> >
>> > (ca-if-present being the current "require" sslmode behavior).
>> >
>> > We could then deprecate sslmode=verify and verify-full and have them be
>> > synonyms of sslmode=require and corresponding sslverify.
>>
>> Hmm. I agree that the other suggestion was a bit weird, but I'm not
>> sure I like the multiple-options approach either. That's going to
>> require redesign of all software that deals with it at all today :S
>
> Why? They could continue to use the existing options; or switch to the
> new options if they wanted different behavior, as is the case of the OP.
I guess. I was mostly thinking in the terms of anything that has
connection things that look anything like the one in pgadmin for
example - which will now suddenly need more than one dropdown box, for
what really should be a simple setting. But I guess that can be
considered an UI thing, and jus thave said application map a single
dropdown to multiple options in the connection string.
>> Maybe we should just update the docs and be done with it :-)
>
> That's another option, sure ... :-)
I've applied a docs fix for this now. We can keep discussing how to
make a more extensive fix in head :)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
