> On 1 Sep 2025, at 03:58, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 09:49:34PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> When looking into why the SNI tests failed on Windows I think I found a >> pre-existing issue that we didn't have tests for, which my patch added tests >> for and thus broke. >> >> The test I added was to check restarting and reloading with ssl passphrase >> commands (which we do have testcoverage for) with a subsequent connection >> test >> to ensure it didn't just work to start the cluster. > > Would this part be better if extracted from the main patch and then > backpatched? Even if not backpatched, a split would be cleaner on > HEAD, I assume, leading to less fuzz with the main patch.
Yes, that's my plan, just wanted to float it here first to see if I was thinking about it all wrong. I will raise it on its own thread on -hackers. The backpatchable portion is probably limited to a docs entry clarifying the behaviour on Windows. -- Daniel Gustafsson
