From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default?
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:50:39 -0400
Message-ID: <2244433.1593053439@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200625015026.GE130132@paquier.xyz>
References: <a9408304-4381-a5af-d259-e55d349ae4ce@2ndquadrant.com>
<4FBC50DB-599A-42AA-90C8-3051E3A748BB@yesql.se>
<64437c39-c5fb-d799-f3d3-b638e34c1dd2@2ndquadrant.com>
<003BDF1F-FC7A-4901-BBC0-33A44FE07A89@yesql.se>
<20200625015026.GE130132@paquier.xyz>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:30:03AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, maybe this is also something which can be
>> done more easily if we improve the error reporting? Right now it's fairly
>> cryptic IMO.
> This part may be tricky to get right I think, because the error comes
> directly from OpenSSL when negotiating the protocol used between the
> client and the server, like "no protocols available" or such.
Can we do something comparable to the backend's HINT protocol, where
we add on a comment that's only mostly-likely to be right?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael@paquier.xyz, daniel@yesql.se, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default?
In-Reply-To: <2244433.1593053439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox