Re: George MacKerron > > Before we can make this change, I think we would have to improve the > > UX. psql does not even have any --switch for it. PostgreSQL serving > > non-SSL and SSL on the same port doesn't make the UX better... :-/ > > How do you think the UX could be improved? Maybe by using a psql switch > and/or an env var to opt out of (or initially even to opt into) the new > sslmode treatment?
The env var is already there (PGSSLMODE). Now you can say `psql -h db.example.com -p 5433 dbfoo`, but for specifying the sslmode, you have to rewrite at least the last argument to use connection string syntax, `psql "dbname=dbfoo sslmode=verify-full`. This needs be be less cumbersome. (And the names of the options make me want to stay away from them, require/verify-ca/verify-full/verify-confusing. Your sslmode=secure idea is really good.) It should be as simple as psql --ssl (= sslmode=secure) psql --insecure (the old sslmode=require) psql --no-ssl (= sslmode=disable) psql -s and -S are unfortunately already taken :-/ For connection strings, perhaps the best action is to tell people that always including "sslmode=something" is best practise. For libpq-style key=value connection strings, that wouldn't even be ugly. For postgresql://-style strings, we would ideally have something like http:// vs https://, but I am not sure how to squeeze that into the syntax. (Appending ?sslmode= works, but meh.) Christoph
