public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
To: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
Cc: Dewei Dai <[email protected]>
Cc: li.evan.chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Serverside SNI support in libpq
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 11:03:07 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<aa7gx3mychf3m2g67mbslzbxjy3if4enpcflstoa5pol3432x5@ugqz45gsvurq>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+m2Ks7D4obtXay3y-UNn6CkTNrmr_zWC25vKTdesatafA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGECzQTWH-bzHcdPo=i09TL_P6_HBBNEkBmr+rpN_J9zVfR2Fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+=u=vS1beiog6p5e843uVdout9qZY=pRj4vo=jCVwgGTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On 12/12/2025 13:41, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 1:57 AM Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Maybe.  I'm not a big fan of magic-file-exist configurations
>>
>> Me neither. (I especially don't like the idea of ignoring a
>> certificate+key setting that a user has taken the time to put into a
>> config.)

+1

> I wonder if the way forward is to do both?  Heikki has a good point that when
> working with pg_hosts.conf it should be clear from just that file what the
> final config will be, and in the previous version that wasn't the case since
> the ssl_snimode GUC set operation modes.  At the same time, Jacob has a point
> that overriding configuration just because pg_hosts exists isn't transparent.
> 
> Adding a boolean GUC which turns ph_hosts (and thus SNI) on or off can perhaps
> fix both complaints?  If the GUC is on, pg_hosts - and only pg_hosts - is used
> for configuring secrets.  By using the * fallback and no_sni rule in pg_hosts
> all variations of configs can be achieved.  If the GUC is off, then the regular
> SSL GUCs are used and pg_host is never considered (and thus SNI is not
> possible).
> 
> Such a GUC wouldn't make the patch all that much different from what it is
> right now. What do you think about that middleground proposal?

I like that.

Instead of a boolean GUC, it could perhaps be a path to the pg_hosts 
file. I haven't thought this through but somehow it feels more natural 
to me than a "read this file or not" setting.

- Heikki

view thread (58+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Serverside SNI support in libpq
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox