On 2014-08-28 10:12:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Why would they need to be BACKEND, as opposed to just PGC_SIGHUP? > > > I just thought semantically - because they do not change in a running > > backend. Any running backend will continue with encryption set up > > based on the old certificate. > > Hm. Yeah, I guess there is some use in holding onto the values that were > actually used to initialize the current session, or at least there would > be if we exposed the cert contents in any fashion.
Won't that allow the option to be specified at connection start by mere mortal users? That sounds odd to me. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
