> On 06 Mar 2018, at 22:08, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 3/4/18 17:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> Do I think this patch is realistic to target for v11? Well. Given where we >>> are in the cycle, I don’t think any new TLS implementation going in is >>> realistic at this point since none of the proposed ones have had enough tyre >>> kicking done. That might change should there be lots of interest and work >>> started soon, but as has been discussed elsewhere recently the project has >>> limited resources. I have time to work on this, and support reviewers of >>> it, >>> but that’s only piece of the puzzle. > >> I think it would be best if both this patch and the GnuTLS patch are >> moved to the next CF and are attacked early in the PG12 cycle. > > +1. I think it's fairly important that those two get reviewed/committed > in the same cycle, in case we need to adjust the relevant APIs.
I completely agree with all of the above. cheers ./daniel
