> On 28 Mar 2022, at 23:51, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Barring objections I will go ahead and push this for 15. It's the minimal
> change but it might still help someone new to PostgreSQL who gets confused on
> the choice of naming/wording.
Hearing no objections I went ahead with this now.
--
> On 25 Mar 2022, at 22:01, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2022, at 20:58, Robert Haas wrote:
>> However, if we're not ready/willing to make a bigger change, then doing as
>> you
>> have proposed here seems fine to me.
>
> Thanks for review! Trying out again just now the patch still ap
> On 25 Mar 2022, at 20:58, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 8:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Since the approach taken wasn't to anyones liking, attached is a v4 (partly
>> extracted from the previous patch) which only adds notes that SSL is used
>> interchangeably with TLS in o
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 8:47 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Since the approach taken wasn't to anyones liking, attached is a v4 (partly
> extracted from the previous patch) which only adds notes that SSL is used
> interchangeably with TLS in our documentation and configuration.
I have actually bee
Since the approach taken wasn't to anyones liking, attached is a v4 (partly
extracted from the previous patch) which only adds notes that SSL is used
interchangeably with TLS in our documentation and configuration.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
v4-0001-doc-Clarify-that-
> On 1 Jul 2021, at 22:40, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 30.06.21 22:46, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I think consistency is the interesting aspect here. We already have a mix of
>> SSL, TLS and SSL/TLS (although heavily skewed towards SSL) so we should
>> settle
>> on one and stick to it.
On 30.06.21 22:46, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
I think consistency is the interesting aspect here. We already have a mix of
SSL, TLS and SSL/TLS (although heavily skewed towards SSL) so we should settle
on one and stick to it. The arguments in the NSS thread which led to this
pointed to SSL/TLS.
On 30.06.21 20:43, Jacob Champion wrote:
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 20:20 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I note that popular places such as the Apache and nginx SSL/TLS modules
just use SSL in their documentation, and they are probably under much
more scrutiny in this area.
For Apache, that's not s
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, at 5:46 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 30 Jun 2021, at 20:20, Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
>
> > I am not in favor of this direction. I think it just adds tediousness and
> > doesn't really help anyone. If we are worried about correct terminology,
> > then we should
> On 30 Jun 2021, at 20:20, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> I am not in favor of this direction. I think it just adds tediousness and
> doesn't really help anyone. If we are worried about correct terminology,
> then we should just change everything to TLS.
I actually think SSL/TLS has won the d
On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 20:20 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I note that popular places such as the Apache and nginx SSL/TLS modules
> just use SSL in their documentation, and they are probably under much
> more scrutiny in this area.
For Apache, that's not strictly true [1, 2]. mod_ssl and its
On 15.06.21 15:59, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Looking at the docs it turns out that we have a mix of SSL (with one ssl),
SSL/TLS and TLS for referring to the same thing. The attached changes the
documentation to consistently use SSL/TLS when referring to an encrypted
connection using a TLS protoco
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 01:53:47PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The attached v3 does it this way.
Thanks. Mostly what was on message upthread. Applied this one.
> Yes, there are a few but not too many. Whenever the protocol is refererred to
> and not the concept of an encrypted connection
> On 22 Jun 2021, at 06:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2021, at 07:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> It looks inconsistent to me to point to the libpq documentation to get
>>> the details about SNI. Wouldn't is be bett
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2021, at 07:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> It looks inconsistent to me to point to the libpq documentation to get
>> the details about SNI. Wouldn't is be better to have an item in the
>> glossary that refers to the bit
> On 18 Jun 2021, at 07:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> While in there I added IMO missing items to the glossary and acronyms
>> sections
>> as well as fixed up markup around OpenSSL.
>>
>> This only deals with docs, but if th
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> While in there I added IMO missing items to the glossary and acronyms sections
> as well as fixed up markup around OpenSSL.
>
> This only deals with docs, but if this is deemed interesting then userfacing
> messages in the code s
17 matches
Mail list logo
