On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Also, this isn't really a good argument against using uniform names > for parameters that every implementation is certain to have, like > ssl_key_file.
Even then, it's not that hard to imagine minor variations between what different implementations will accept. The most obvious difference is probably that they might expect different file formats, but it's also possible that a Windows-specific implementation might allow omitting the file extension while some other implementation does not, for example. I agree that it would probably be fairly low-risk to use one parameter for the key file for every implementation, but I suggest that it would be cleaner and less prone to confusion if we enforce a full separation of parameters. That also spares us having to make a judgement call about which parameters have semantics close enough that we need not separate them. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company