On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:00:49AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:49:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote in > > > > Are you saying we should _require_ clientcert=verify-full when 'cert' > > > > authentication is used? I don't see the point of that --- I just > > > > updated the docs to say doing so was duplicate behavior. > > > > > > I don't suggest changing the current behavior. I'm saying it is the > > > way it is working and we should correctly error-out that since it > > > doesn't work as specified. > > Sorry, I mistead you. I don't suggest verify-full is needed for cert > authentication. I said we should just reject the combination > cert+veriry-ca.
OK. > > Uh, I don't understand what 'combination the same way with > > "cert"+"no-verify"'. Right now, cert with no clientcert/verify line > > works just fine. Is "no-verify" something special? Are you saying it > > is any random string that would generate an error? > > It was delimited as "We should reject (that)" "that combination > (=cert+ferify-ca)" "the same way(=error-out)" "with cert+no-verify". OK, and that is what your patch does, right? And we should error out on "with cert+no-verify" just like "with cert+XXXXXX", right? I don't see "no-verify" mentioned anywhere in our docs. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
