Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSL cipher and version

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSL cipher and version
Date: 2010-07-27 23:43:51
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Any objections to me committing this?
>>> Might wanna fix this first:
>>> +PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(ssl_veresion);
>>>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Wow.  It works remarkably well without fixing that, but I'll admit
>> that does seem lucky.
> Well, it's got no arguments, which is the main thing that works
> differently in call protocol V1.  I think you'd find that the
> PG_RETURN_NULL case doesn't really work though ...

It seems to work, but it might be that something's broken under the hood.

Anyhow, committed with that correction.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-27 23:47:20
Subject: Re: Parsing of aggregate ORDER BY clauses
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-27 23:41:29
Subject: Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group