Re: SSH Tunneling implementation

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Akshay Joshi
> <akshay(dot)joshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Ashesh Vashi
> >> <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Why are we talking about using the external application here?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because I suggested giving it some thought in case it turns out we have
> no
> >> other option.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The only problem with the current implementation - is that it does use
> >>> new APIs for tunneling.
> >>> We can change the implementation based on the current supplied libssh2
> on
> >>> most linux flavours.
> >>> i.e. libssh2 - 1.2.7 or later
> >>>
> >>> I have asked Akshay to check - if we can modify the current
> >>> implementation to use the older version of libssh2. (feasibility)
> >>
> >>
> >> I've already asked him to investigate whether there is another API that
> >> may be used that he may have missed. Only supporting old versions of
> libssh2
> >> is unacceptable though - we need to support current versions, and
> ideally
> >> older ones as well for compatibility with Ubuntu/Debian/RHEL etc.
> >
> >
> > I have investigated, there are two functions libssh2_session_handshake
> > and libssh2_exit() which is not available in the older versions.
> > libssh2_session_handshake() is replacement function to
> > libssh2_session_startup()(deprecated) which was added in the version
> 1.2.8
> > and
> > libssh2_exist() was added in the version 1.2.5. So to provide backward
> > compatibility we can perform the function check instead of configure
> > check and will add appropriate macros to build it properly.
> >
> > Thought??Comments?
>
> Uh, I'm not sure what you mean with "function check instead of
> configure check". You mean trying to load the function at runtime,
> with dlopen() and friends? I guess we could, but I don't think pgadmin
> has any functionality for that today, so it's going to bring in a fair
> amount of platform specific code, isn't it? But if it's not too
> complicated, it seems like a good choice.
>
He means to say - check function check at configuration.
i.e.
A lot of system does not have snprintf supported so a lot of packages
check existence of it at configuration and define HAVE_SNPRINTF macros.

--

Thanks & Regards,

Ashesh Vashi
EnterpriseDB INDIA: Enterprise PostgreSQL Company<http://www.enterprisedb.com/>

*http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi*

> --
> Magnus Hagander
> Me: http://www.hagander.net/
> Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>