> On 11 Jan 2020, at 03:49, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> Hmmmmeuh. It would be perfect to rely only on OpenSSL for that part > to bring some sanity, and compare the results fetched from the SSL > context so as we don't have to worry about special cases in with the > GUC reload if the parameter is not set, or the parameter value is not > supported. I'm not convinced about this, but since there is a thread opened for discussing the range check let's take it over there. > Daniel, are you planning to start a new thread? I was going to, but you beat me to it =) >> One thing I noticed when looking at it is that we now have sha2_openssl.c and >> openssl_protocol.c in src/common. For easier visual grouping of OpenSSL >> functionality, it makes sense to me to rename sha2_openssl.c to >> openssl_sha2.c, >> but that might just be pointless churn. > > Databases like consistency, and so do I, so no issues from me to do a > rename of the sha2.c file. That makes sense with the addition of the > new file. Done in the attached v3. cheers ./daniel
libpq_minmaxproto_v3.patch
Description: Binary data
