Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> FWIW, I'm -0.5 on adding gnutls support. I've not seen any non-vague
> arguments for it, and having debugged gnutls using applications in the
> past, I'm not convinced we're not primarily increasing our workload by
> adding support. If gnutls would improve our windows or OSX situation,
> I'd think differently, but afaics it doesn't.
That's a fair point. But I think a big part of the value here is to
verify that we've cleaned up our internal APIs to the point where a
different SSL/TLS implementation *could* be rolled underneath. As part
of that, we certainly want to look at gnutls. There might be more
practical value (at least in the short term) in porting to the macOS or
Windows native TLS stacks. But the more different libraries we look at
in the process, the less likely we are to paint ourselves into a corner.
regards, tom lane
