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

Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, 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 18:08:52
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> And we get into the whole question of error handling, which is what
>> shot down that proposal last time.

> Can you remind me of the details?  I don't remember that issue.
> Currently PQinitSSL() returns void, so I don't see an issue there.

The point is exactly the same as the complaint about turning PQinitSSL's
argument into a bitmask: if you are trying to define an extensible API
then you need a way for the app to determine whether all the bits it
passed were recognizable by the library.

I think we should stick with the simple two-argument function and not
try to design a solution for unknown problems.  Otherwise we are right
back at the point where the previous thread petered out for lack of

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew ChernowDate: 2009-03-30 18:28:59
Subject: Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-03-30 18:04:00
Subject: Re: More message encoding woes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group