Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1w39wU-000xgp-37 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:45:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1w39wS-00HQh2-2k for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:45:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1w39wS-00HQgt-1q for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:45:24 +0000 Received: from smtp.outgoing.loopia.se ([93.188.3.37]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1w39wO-00000000XF2-097H for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:45:23 +0000 Received: from s807.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC2C571495 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:45:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from s899.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.5]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E67570D5A; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:45:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (unknown [172.22.191.6]) by s899.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FABC2C8BA86; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:45:18 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at amavis.loopia.se X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: s470.loopia.se (amavis); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yesql.se Received: from s934.loopia.se ([172.22.191.5]) by localhost (s470.loopia.se [172.22.190.34]) (amavis, port 10024) with UTF8LMTP id 2rUaQSaR4IJM; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:45:18 +0100 (CET) X-Loopia-Auth: user X-Loopia-User: daniel@yesql.se X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 89.255.232.236 Received: from smtpclient.apple (customer-89-255-232-236.stosn.net [89.255.232.236]) (Authenticated sender: daniel@yesql.se) by s934.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B53337CEAB9; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:45:17 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yesql.se; s=loopiadkim1707475645; t=1773913517; bh=eJaLc4fU6n+lb31NHB0Ul8qx8oRhufM+LHoqEOpqB4U=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=k9ibuNEiEdCIGFwyaaFZKyYaPUL+nS27DRqGV3YB7UvaeOa0i6jjmt5XAk8vlyOTD fdjohKLRdyGJphQC60NyWcdjaUBJoIazcgu7+JYRBNepCaAT6P+XO8CddhP67s0KZJ Rrd6KPF/btDxjWJl4whHdf6iBoK0Fr3fx4Q4e61M1MrskOGugQRato/BsdkaHwkPsI hJjhhnX/g0mLaxAt2A9eHs1irFV239c75MJzH558qngtnQuGm/P4sG2knOwxnIpov/ ybJVnsOUXrTfP1DXd3kQ9eeQgtrWD8EoV+w4cs0YR241ozfd8gwWIlxHhVk8AMfymO aJxTrYtsL1jvg== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.2\)) Subject: Re: Serverside SNI support in libpq From: Daniel Gustafsson In-Reply-To: <20260319093924.GA21441@p46.dedyn.io;lightning.p46.dedyn.io> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:45:07 +0100 Cc: Zsolt Parragi , Jacob Champion , Jelte Fennema-Nio , Heikki Linnakangas , Dewei Dai , "li.evan.chao" , Michael Paquier , Andres Freund , Pgsql Hackers Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7DA91781-AA47-447A-BA6F-99FE7E83954E@yesql.se> References: <1C38F269-E552-4F78-9E88-E91CEDB12F35@yesql.se> <23D19F69-A8DE-4F89-99F6-5FC48762CE4D@yesql.se> <561BF011-1626-43A5-BD82-913E67EEBA8B@yesql.se> <20260319093924.GA21441@p46.dedyn.io;lightning.p46.dedyn.io> To: Michael Banck X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51.11.2) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk > On 19 Mar 2026, at 10:39, Michael Banck wrote: > I'm really late to the part, but I did not see it discussed elsewhere = on > a quick glance: Isn't pg_hosts.conf a really (too) generic name for = this > feature? I don't want to open a huge bikeshedding sub-thread, but was = a > more specific filename considered? I don't recall any discussion on that, and I don't really see a problem = off the cuff. As it is a config file for defining hostnames and their config, = in which way do you feel its too generic and what would "claiming that name" for = this prevent (or how would it confuse)? Do you have any alternative = suggestions? -- Daniel Gustafsson