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 Chernow||Date: 2009-03-30 18:28:59|
|Subject: Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-03-30 18:04:00|
|Subject: Re: More message encoding woes |