Subject: SSL documentation

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:43:24 +0200 (CEST)

We still need some documentation of the new SSL features you added.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   [email-masked]

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:26:32 -0400 (EDT)

> We still need some documentation of the new SSL features you added.

I am attaching Bear's SSL doc email and a comment on it that has been
sitting in my mailbox since Bear first submitted the code.  I don't know
much about SSL do I didn't feel comfortable adding it to the SGML docs.

Also, keep in mind there are some of Bear's features we didn't add, and
there were some scripts in /interfaces/ssl (still in CVS but deleted)
the is referenced in his docs.

Basically, SSL thing is very unclear to me and looks like a big mess.  I
don't know if that is because I don't understand it, or if it is really
a mess that some of his stuff is in, some isn't.  To me it seems his
scripts tied into use the new SSL features, but no one has been able to
comment on that.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [email-masked]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:15:43 +0200 (CEST)

> scripts tied into use the new SSL features, but no one has been able to

Not only that, but currently what used to work is broken.  Now you need
certificates on the client side, which isn't documented anywhere.  If we
don't get documentation we should revert the patches.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:26:51 -0400 (EDT)

> don't get documentation we should revert the patches.

Yep, I am ready to rip, but I need someone who understands SSL to do it
for me because I don't understand which parts need to be ripped and
which parts are good.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:17:18 +0200 (CEST)

> for me because I don't understand which parts need to be ripped and

If we decide to go that route we should revert all the SSL related
patches.  We're past the point of figuring out which parts are worthwhile.
It should be relatively possible to figure out which files and revisions
where affected from the CVS logs and the patches list.