Re: [HACKERS] LDAPS

2018-01-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 1/2/18 14:56, Thomas Munro wrote: >> A small point on the test changes. You change the test under >> "diagnostic message", but I'm not sure why. Do the changes invalidate >> the existing test? > > Yeah. In master, I was relying on the server rejecting ldaptls=1 > requests due to lack of conf

Re: [HACKERS] LDAPS

2018-01-02 Thread Thomas Munro
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/26/17 15:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> This patch looks reasonable to me. I have also seen occasional requests >> for this in the field. >> >> If someone could test this on Windows, I think we could move ahead with it. Thanks for l

Re: [HACKERS] LDAPS

2018-01-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 12/26/17 15:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > This patch looks reasonable to me. I have also seen occasional requests > for this in the field. > > If someone could test this on Windows, I think we could move ahead with it. A small point on the test changes. You change the test under "diagnostic

Re: [HACKERS] LDAPS

2017-12-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
This patch looks reasonable to me. I have also seen occasional requests for this in the field. If someone could test this on Windows, I think we could move ahead with it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Se