Merged
Conversation
71218d8 to
e19dc9f
Compare
e19dc9f to
8dec2ee
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
postgres 17 added support for "sslnegotiation=direct". This allows skipping the ssl negotiation handshake.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-CONNECT-SSLNEGOTIATION
The implementation is simple. If
sslnegotiation=direct, do not run the ssl negotiation. I have tested this against a known postgres provider that supports this connection mode and it works fine according to my wireshark inspection.Something to consider: should we return an error if
sslnegotiationis not one of"postgres"or"direct"?