On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I think probably the right thing for now is to install a do-nothing > >> callback, so that at least we don't have the issue of the postmaster > >> freezing at SIGHUP. If someone feels like trying to revive support > >> of passphrase-protected server keys, that would be a perfectly fine > >> base to build on; they'd need a callback there anyway. > > > Does it still support passphrase protected ones on startup, or did that > get > > thrown out with the bathwater? > > It does not; what would be the point, if the key would be lost at SIGHUP? >
If we lost it, yes. But we could keep the old key around if it hasn't changed, thus behave just like we did in <= 9.6. > > I think that's definitely a separate thing > > and there are a nontrivial number of people who would be interested in a > > setup where they can use a passphrase to protect it initially, just not > > reload it. > > If any of those number of people want to step up and design/implement > a non-broken solution for passphrases, that'd be fine with me. But > I would want to see something that's actually a credible solution, > allowing the postmaster to be started as a normal daemon. And working > on Windows. > Well, for all those people 9.6 worked significantly better... Because they could reload *other* config parameters without failure. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
