On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:
>> 2012-11-22 12:44 keltezéssel, Magnus Hagander írta:
>>>>>>>> Also, a question was buried in the other review which is - are we OK
>>>>>>>> to remove the requiressl parameter. Both these patches do so, because
>>>>>>>> the code becomes much simpler if we can do that. It has been
>>>>>>>> deprecated since 7.2. Is it OK to remove it, or do we need to put
>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>> in the more complex code to deal with both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just going to highlight that we're looking for at least one third
>>>>>> party to comment on this :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, me too. A +1 for removing wouldn't count from me. ;-)
>
> +1
Actually, with the cleaner code that resulted from the rewrite,
reintroducing it turned out to be pretty darn simple - if I'm not
missing something. PFA a patch that comes *with* requiressl=<n>
support, without making the code that much more complex.
It also fixes the fact that pg_service.conf was broken by the previous one.
It also includes the small fixes from Zoltans latest round (the one
that was for libpq, not the one for pg_receivexlog that turned out to
be wrong).
And a pgindent run :)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
