Skip to content

fix(#24): correct ADBC transport CA-pinning claim in README - #25

Open
Analitiq-Bot wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/issue-24-ca-pinning-is-impossible-on-the-adbc-transport-nee
Open

fix(#24): correct ADBC transport CA-pinning claim in README#25
Analitiq-Bot wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/issue-24-ca-pinning-is-impossible-on-the-adbc-transport-nee

Conversation

@Analitiq-Bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

README.md incorrectly stated "Both transports receive the SSL mode and the CA certificate." This was false: the ssl_ca_certificate is applied only on the sqlalchemy transport. The ADBC transport cannot use the stored PEM secret for CA pinning — the libpq ADBC driver rejects every adbc.postgresql.* database option with NOT_IMPLEMENTED, and libpq's sslrootcert expects a filesystem path, not PEM text. Under ADBC, verify-ca / verify-full fall back to libpq's default CA lookup at ~/.postgresql/root.crt.

Changes:

  • Replace the inaccurate one-liner with an accurate description of the per-transport TLS split in the Transports section.
  • Add a dedicated Limitations bullet for ADBC CA pinning so the constraint is discoverable without reading the 2.0.0 upgrade notes.

No code changes; the accurate description has always been present in AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md (lines 44-48), and the upgrade notes — only the Transports narrative in the README contradicted it.

Test plan

  • Verified the diff against AGENTS.md and the CLAUDE.md description of the two transports for consistency.
  • No executable tests exist in this repo (documentation-only connector).

Closes #24

Analitiq-Bot and others added 2 commits August 2, 2026 11:49
README.md stated "Both transports receive the SSL mode and the CA
certificate." which is false: the CA certificate is applied only on the
sqlalchemy transport. Under ADBC the libpq driver rejects every
adbc.postgresql.* option with NOT_IMPLEMENTED, and sslrootcert expects a
filesystem path that a stored PEM secret cannot supply.

Replace the inaccurate sentence with an accurate description of the
per-transport TLS split, and add a matching entry to the Limitations
section so the constraint is discoverable without reading the upgrade
notes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The 2.0.0 upgrade section repeated the full CA-pinning explanation
verbatim. The Transports section (line 89) and Limitations section
(line 124) now carry it, so trim the upgrade note to a cross-reference
pointer to eliminate the maintenance triple.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@Analitiq-Bot
Analitiq-Bot marked this pull request as ready for review August 2, 2026 11:51
@Analitiq-Bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

To use Codex here, create a Codex account and connect to github.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CA pinning is impossible on the ADBC transport (needs an engine-side PEM-to-file materialization)

1 participant