On 1/23/18 21:27, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:08:37PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 1/22/18 02:29, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> However there is as well the argument that this list's contents are not >>> directly used now, and based on what I saw from the MacOS SSL and GnuTLS >>> patches that would not be the case after either. >> >> Right, there is no facility for negotiating the channel binding type, so >> a boolean result should be enough. > > I am not completely convinced either that we need to complicate the code > to handle channel binding type negotiation. > >> In which case we wouldn't actually need this for GnuTLS yet. > > Sure. This depends mainly on how the patch for Mac's Secure Transport > moves forward.
Moved to next CF along with those other two patches. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
