Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o432H-0008SX-8O for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:16:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o432F-0005zn-Hs for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:16:55 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o432F-0005ze-9m for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:16:55 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o432A-00075j-UJ for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:16:54 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 25MGGlGR3515418; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:16:47 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Jacob Champion cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi , peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, Michael Paquier , byavuz81@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17522: While using --with-ssl=openssl and PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl' options, SSL test fails on OpenBSD 7.1 In-reply-to: References: <17522-bfcd5c603b5f4daa@postgresql.org> <20220621.092753.452165241922345774.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <3091666.1655846153@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Jacob Champion message dated "Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:11:48 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3515416.1655914607.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:16:47 -0400 Message-ID: <3515417.1655914607@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Jacob Champion writes: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 2:16 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> So maybe the simplest fix is to do the same if there's a '/' anywhere? >> More generally, should we limit the SNI host string to chars allowed in >> DNS names? > That's certainly an option. Do you think it's still early enough in > the cycle to make that change for 15? Why not? We're still in beta, and pretty early at that. regards, tom lane