Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2] (may be
	forged)) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA37656
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:41:45 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01745;
	Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:40:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: SSL patch 
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:10:25 +0200
	<215896B6B5E1CF11BC5600805FFEA82101F70B70@sirius.edu.sollentuna.se>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:40:30 -0400
Message-ID: <1743.932834430@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> As it is right now, it should work in all combinations except a 6.6 client
> compiled with SSL support connecting to a pre-6.6 server. It already
> falls-back if the server is 6.6 (without SSL support). And the 6.6 client
> compiled without SSL works.

Actually, it shouldn't matter whether the server is 6.6-without-SSL
or pre-6.6.  At least in the way I envisioned it, they'd act the same.

> There is not yet a way in the client to specify that SSL connection is
> required (it can be specified on the server). I'm planning to put that in,
> but I thought it would be good to get the "base code" approved first - which
> proved to be a good thing :-)
> I'll see if I can wrap something up before I leave on vacation (leaving
> pretty soon, be gone about a week). Not sure I'll make it, though. Should I
> do this as a patch against what I have now, or keep sending in "the one big
> patch"?

I don't think anyone has applied your patch yet, so why don't you just
resubmit the whole thing after cleaning up the loose ends.

			regards, tom lane