Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf

Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I think there is a good argument that PQinitSSL(X) where X > 1 would
> > work fine for more fine-grained control. The new libpq init function
> > idea was interesting, but having a documented solution for
> > WSAStartup()/WSACleanup() usage, we now don't have another libpq init
> > use-case so it is hard to suggest a new libpq function.
>
> If you look back through the list, the PQinit idea was offered up
> several times while discussing WSA* stuff. There were few buyers. I
> don't see how having or not having a documented solution for WSA* usage
> would make a bit of difference.

It only means we don't have _another_ use for a more general libpq init
function.

> > I am figuring we have to keep the current behavior and see what happens
> > after 8.4; the new documentation should make the behavior clear and
> > perhaps trigger other users to report suggestions.
> >
> >
>
> This is not a battle I find worth fighting. But I am having trouble
> staying completely quiet; I typically have this issue when I disagree :)
> This patch merely documents the problem, when another fully documented
> working patch "fixed" it; following the discussions on the list.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2009-02/msg01018.php
>
> Was this reviewed and/or rejected?

Comments Tom made were that there was no consensus on the proper
fix/direction, and I agree.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +