Re: ssl passphrase callback
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ssl passphrase callback |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20191109115225.fkhz4x5emwxazoyn@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ssl passphrase callback (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 11:12:08PM +0900, Simon Riggs wrote: >On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 10:24, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > >> What is the value of a shared library over a shell command? We had >> this discussion in relation to archive_command years ago, and decided >> on a shell command as the best API. >> > >I don't recall such a discussion, but I can give perspective: > >* shell command offered the widest and simplest API for integration, >which was the most important consideration for a backup API. That >choice caused difficulty with the need to pass information to the >external command, e.g. %f %p > It's not clear to me why simple API for integration would be less valuable for this feature. Also, I'm sure passing data to/from shell command may be tricky, but presumably we have figured how to do that. >* shared library is more appropriate for a security-related module, so >users can't see how it is configured, as well as being more >tightly integrated so it can be better tailored to various uses > I don't follow. Why would there be a significant difference between a shell command/script and shared library in this respect? If you don't want the users to see the config, just store it in a separate file and it's about the same as storing it in the .so library. Is there something that can be done with a .so library but can't be done with a shell command (which may just call a binary, with all the config included, making it equal to the .so solution)? regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: