On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 18:22 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 7:16 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > I have briefly looked at 0002 (0001 in the attached set), and it seems > > sane to me. I still need to look at 0003 (well, now 0002) in details, > > which is very sensible as one mistake would likely be a CVE-class > > bug. > > The 0002/0001/whateveritisaftertherebase is tracked over at > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.postgresql.org%2Fmessage-id%2Fflat%2F92e70110-9273-d93c-5913-0bccb6562740%40dunslane.net&data=04%7C01%7Cpchampion%40vmware.com%7Cd085c1e56ff045c7af3308d8ed57279a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637520305878415422%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=kyW9O1jD0z14z0rC%2BYY9UhIKb7D6bg0nCWoVBJkF8oQ%3D&reserved=0 > isn't it? I've assumed the expectation is to have that one committed > from that thread, and then rebase using that.
I think the primary thing that needs to be greenlit for both is the idea of using the RFC 2253/4514 format for Subject DNs. Other than that, the version here should only contain the changes necessary for both features (that is, port->peer_dn), so there's no hard dependency between the two. It's just on me to make sure my version is up-to-date. Which I believe it is, as of today. --Jacob
