Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> It might also put us a hard spot if the next TLS spec ends up being called
> something other than TLS?  It's clearly happened before =)

Good point.  I'm inclined to just stick with the SSL terminology.

>> Also, do we have precedent for GUC aliases? That might be a little
>> weird.

> I don't think we do currently, but I have a feeling the topic has surfaced here
> before.

We do, look for "sort_mem" in guc.c.  So it's not like it'd be
inconvenient to implement.  But I think user confusion and the
potential for the new terminology to fail to be any more
future-proof are good reasons to just leave the names alone.

            regards, tom lane