On Saturday, July 24, 1999 5:37 PM, Tom Lane [SMTP:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] wrote:
> I wrote:
> > [ a bunch of stuff ]
> 
> After looking into this morning's patches digest, I see that half of
> this already occurred to you :-).
> 
> I'd still suggest extending the client to fall back to non-SSL if the
> server rejects the connection (unless it is told by the application
> that it must make an SSL connection).  Then there's no compatibility
> problem at all, even for mix-and-match SSL-enabled and not-SSL-enabled
> clients and servers.

That sounds like a good thing to do.

As it is right now, it should work in all combinations except a 6.6 client
compiled with SSL support connecting to a pre-6.6 server. It already
falls-back if the server is 6.6 (without SSL support). And the 6.6 client
compiled without SSL works.

There is not yet a way in the client to specify that SSL connection is
required (it can be specified on the server). I'm planning to put that in,
but I thought it would be good to get the "base code" approved first - which
proved to be a good thing :-)

I'll see if I can wrap something up before I leave on vacation (leaving
pretty soon, be gone about a week). Not sure I'll make it, though. Should I
do this as a patch against what I have now, or keep sending in "the one big
patch"?


//Magnus

Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:10:25 +0200
Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>
RE: [HACKERS] Re: SSL patch 
Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> As it is right now, it should work in all combinations except a 6.6 client
> compiled with SSL support connecting to a pre-6.6 server. It already
> falls-back if the server is 6.6 (without SSL support). And the 6.6 client
> compiled without SSL works.

Actually, it shouldn't matter whether the server is 6.6-without-SSL
or pre-6.6.  At least in the way I envisioned it, they'd act the same.

> There is not yet a way in the client to specify that SSL connection is
> required (it can be specified on the server). I'm planning to put that in,
> but I thought it would be good to get the "base code" approved first - which
> proved to be a good thing :-)
> I'll see if I can wrap something up before I leave on vacation (leaving
> pretty soon, be gone about a week). Not sure I'll make it, though. Should I
> do this as a patch against what I have now, or keep sending in "the one big
> patch"?

I don't think anyone has applied your patch yet, so why don't you just
resubmit the whole thing after cleaning up the loose ends.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:40:30 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: SSL patch 