Re: Someone's broken psql's connection-failure error reporting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Someone's broken psql's connection-failure error reporting
Date: 2003-02-14 01:55:23
Message-ID: 3135.1045187723@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've done a little bit of cleanup, but that code is still a mess...
>> someone should rewrite these routines.

> Yes, I looked at it and struggled to get both IPv4 and IPv6 cleanly
> working. Any ideas on how to improve it?

The major problem is the huge amount of #ifdefs, most of which seem to
come from the fact that we deal with a list of possible addresses in
one case and not the other. It would help a lot if we fixed things so
that we dealt with a list in either case --- only a one-element list,
if we don't have getaddrinfo, but getaddrinfo2 could hide that and
provide a uniform API regardless.

The SSL patch is contributing a lot of ugliness too. It would be more
functional as well as cleaner if someone rewrote that code to work in
non-blocking style (which AFAICT should be feasible with the openssl
API, it just wasn't done).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-02-14 02:13:29 Re: location of the configuration files
Previous Message Kevin Brown 2003-02-14 01:47:11 Re: location of the configuration files