Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A850AAD7E31
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:42:42 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) id 1SgHce-00069u-By
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:42:41 +0000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5HFgJip026284;
	Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:42:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
cc: Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com>, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: libpq compression
In-reply-to: 
 <CABUevExq95H2ejYOCCLtTrLz0xCR_WU8Rq9eg0cOQ5Aj1xp_5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4FD9698F.2090407@timbira.com> <29853.1339651170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<4FD9E70B.9040607@timbira.com> <11502.1339699384@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20120615021938.GA21704@momjian.us>
	<CABUevEyv4T+1gR6_Uqm_1qUD9PNDg6UdXbJhwHZgFi9hpQQ6NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3B8BAA6-23E9-423A-A7D1-D2E14769F326@phlo.org>
	<CABUevExi-cJ6AvF2kDOy+qQsB+0JHofrcvVmNVoJ2HziZMMaAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<22690C61-E960-4A2A-BFD5-DAD3D3B5C474@phlo.org>
	<CABUevEzVpqS5RCLz2fFREdPFkuYkEKsrMpnfPixYWPki2=iJOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FDB954F.9010606@timbira.com> <5136.1339799120@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<5365.1339799869@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CABUevEz_V4YYc0tUhkC6KD2GddysM5Z76pcHcMYiMDd7dwMxVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<11357.1339822502@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CABUevEy1sUTOeCjNicUggnMpT7MfgjWud8kQ=wkvJsfbCU8=WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<19804.1339859730@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CABUevExq95H2ejYOCCLtTrLz0xCR_WU8Rq9eg0cOQ5Aj1xp_5g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
	message dated "Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:54:10 +0800"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:42:18 -0400
Message-ID: <26283.1339947738@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201206/834
X-Sequence-Number: 209674

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client
> mirroring ssl_ciphers?

Dunno, do we need one?  I am not sure what the cipher negotiation process
looks like or which side has the freedom to choose.

> That, or just have DEFAULT as being the default (which in current
> openssl means ALL:!aNULL:!eNULL.

If our default isn't the same as the underlying default, I have to
question why not.  But are you sure this "!" notation will work with
all openssl versions?

			regards, tom lane