Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On ons, 2012-02-08 at 09:16 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Yes, ignoring a missing file in a security context is definitely not good. >> It should throw an error. >> >> We have a few bad defaults from the old days around SSL for this, but if it >> requires breaking backwards compatibility to get it right, I think we >> should still do it.
> Btw., should we also consider making similar changes on the libpq side? I think that breaking compatibility of libpq's behavior is a whole lot harder sell than changing things in a way that only affects what people have to put into postgresql.conf. We've always treated the latter as something that can change across major versions. In particular, I observe that we get pushback anytime we break something in a way that makes SSL config files be required on the client side; see bug #6302 for most recent example. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers