> On 7 Feb 2020, at 01:33, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 11:30:40PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Or change to the v1 patch in this thread, which avoids the problem by doing
>> it
>> in the OpenSSL code. It's a shame to have generic TLS functionality be
>> OpenSSL
>> specific when everything else TLS has been abstracted, but not working is
>> clearly a worse option.
>
> The v1 would work just fine considering that, as the code would be
> invoked in a context where all GUCs are already loaded. That's too
> late before the release though, so I have reverted 41aadee, and
> attached is a new patch to consider with improvements compared to v1
> mainly in the error messages.
Having gone back to look at this, I can't think of a better way to implement
this and I think we should go ahead with the proposed patch.
In this message we aren't quoting the TLS protocol setting:
+ (errmsg("%s setting %s not supported by this build",
..but in this detail we are:
+ errdetail("\"%s\" cannot be higher than \"%s\"",
Perhaps we should be consistent across all ereports?
Marking as ready for committer.
cheers ./daniel
