* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> I think probably the right thing for now is to install a do-nothing > > >> callback, so that at least we don't have the issue of the postmaster > > >> freezing at SIGHUP. If someone feels like trying to revive support > > >> of passphrase-protected server keys, that would be a perfectly fine > > >> base to build on; they'd need a callback there anyway. > > > > > Does it still support passphrase protected ones on startup, or did that > > get > > > thrown out with the bathwater? > > > > It does not; what would be the point, if the key would be lost at SIGHUP? > > If we lost it, yes. But we could keep the old key around if it hasn't > changed, thus behave just like we did in <= 9.6.
Either that, or throw the same warning that we can't reload the SSL bits if we had to ask for a passphrase at startup, again like how it worked in 9.6. > > > I think that's definitely a separate thing > > > and there are a nontrivial number of people who would be interested in a > > > setup where they can use a passphrase to protect it initially, just not > > > reload it. > > > > If any of those number of people want to step up and design/implement > > a non-broken solution for passphrases, that'd be fine with me. But > > I would want to see something that's actually a credible solution, > > allowing the postmaster to be started as a normal daemon. And working > > on Windows. > > Well, for all those people 9.6 worked significantly better... Because they > could reload *other* config parameters without failure. Indeed, this is important functionality that people are using. I don't agree with simply removing it because we want to make these options able to be changed on a reload, that's not a good trade-off. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
