On 16/05/2024 17:08, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 16 May 2024, at 15:54, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:33 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
Ok, yeah, I can see that now. Here's a new version to address that. I
merged ENC_SSL_NEGOTIATED_SSL and ENC_SSL_DIRECT_SSL to a single method,
ENC_SSL. The places that need to distinguish between them now check
conn-sslnegotiation. That seems more clear now that there is no fallback.
Unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, we should
expedite getting this committed so that it is included in beta1.
Release freeze begins Saturday.
+1. Having reread the thread and patch I think we should go for this one.
Yep, committed. Thanks everyone!
On 15/05/2024 21:24, Jacob Champion wrote:
This assertion seems a little strange to me:
if (conn->sslnegotiation[0] == 'p')
{
ProtocolVersion pv;
Assert(conn->sslnegotiation[0] == 'p');
But other than that nitpick, nothing else jumps out at me at the moment.
Fixed that. It was a leftover, I had the if-else conditions the other
way round at one point during development.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
