> On 26 Apr 2020, at 14:01, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-24 14:03, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 24 Apr 2020, at 12:56, Peter Eisentraut
>>> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can we reconsider whether we really want to name the new settings like
>>> "sslminprotocolversion", or whether we could add some underscores, both for
>>> readability and for consistency with the server-side options?
>> That was brought up by Michael in the thread, but none of us followed up on
>> it
>> it seems. The current name was chosen to be consistent with the already
>> existing ssl* client-side settings, but I don't really have strong opinions
>> on
>> if that makes sense or not. Perhaps use ssl_m{in|max}_protocolversion to
>> make
>> it more readable?
>
> The names on the backend side are ssl_{min|max|_protocol_version.That was the preferred name by Michael too elsewhere in the thread, so went ahead and made it so. >> The attached renames the userfacing setting, but keeps the environment >> variable >> without underscores as most settings have env vars without underscores. > > Keeping the environment variable as is seems fine (also consistent with > "channel_binding"). > > I would, however, prefer to also rename the internal symbols. Done in the attached v2. cheers ./daniel
minmaxproto_naming-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
