Subject: Re: Allow 'sslkey' and 'sslcert' in postgres_fdw user mappings
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <f941b95e-27ad-cb5c-2495-13c44f90b1bc@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <20191201014857.GE2355@paquier.xyz>
 <1785d74f-0b96-3858-91d7-67f6d9341795@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <2cf635ea-e928-314a-101a-2e3a918bd82a@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:06:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1785d74f-0b96-3858-91d7-67f6d9341795@2ndQuadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-12-02 00:12, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 11/30/19 8:48 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:54:41PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> This patch achieves $SUBJECT and also provides some testing of the
>>> sslpassword setting.
>> The patch does not apply anymore, so a rebase is needed.  As it has
>> not been reviewed, I am moving it to next CF, waiting on author.
> 
> That's OK. This patch is dependent, as it always has been, on the patch
> to allow passwordless user mappings for postgres_fdw. I hope to commit
> that soon, but I'd prefer some signoff from prominent hackers, as I
> don't want to go too far down this road and then encounter a bunch of
> objections.

The prerequisite patch has been committed, so please see about getting 
this patch moving forward.

The patch is very small, of course, but I don't understand the "bit of a 
hack" comment.  Could you explain that?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services