On 15.06.2012 18:28, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On 15.06.2012 17:58, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
You could write a dummy SSL implementation that only does compression,
not
encryption. Ie. only support the 'null' encryption method. That should be
about the same amount of work as writing an implementation of compression
using whatever protocol we would decide to use for negotiating the
compression.
Sure, but then what do you do if you actually want both?
Umm, then you use a real SSL libray, not the dummy one?
But (in this scenario, and so far nobody has proven it to be wrong)
there exists no real SSL library that does support compression.
Oh, I see. Then you're screwed. But I think the right solution to that
is to write/extend a Java SSL implementation to support compression, not
to invent our own in PostgreSQL. The JDK is open source nowadays.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
