Closed
Conversation
|
@bmon Just ran into this very issue and came to make the same fix :) Should a unit test be created for this option? Is there anything as an outsider I could do to help get this merged? |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Currently, when using sslinline=true, client certificates are always attempted to be parsed
even when not provided. This differs from the behaviour when sslinline is not used, where
client certificates are optional and will not be set if not specified.
This change allows connections to be established when sslinline is used but client certificates
are not provided.
A use-case for this would be verifying the database SSL via
verify-caand inlining sslrootcert,while still leaving client certificates unspecified.