Re: SSL (patch 1)

Bear Giles <bgiles@coyotesong.com> writes:
> That's for *you*, and were always meant to be temporary.  I knew there
> would be about a dozen concurrent patches in play, and this helps
> establish precedence if they don't go in in sequence.

I'm a little uncomfortable with that whole approach to things, and was
intending to suggest that you submit the SSL changes as one big patch.
I feel that this is not letting me see the big picture ... quite aside
from the probability of breakage if patches get applied out-of-order.

            regards, tom lane