Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf

From: Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf
Date: 2009-03-30 18:28:59
Message-ID: 49D10F6B.1030802@esilo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I think we should stick with the simple two-argument function and not

+1000000

Generic PQinit concept was already punted several times. Using a bit
mask for initsecure or something was also tried and rejected. The well
is dry on this.

--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-30 18:31:47 Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-03-30 18:08:52 Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf