| 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: | 20770.1238436532@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
consensus.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2009-03-30 18:28:59 | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-30 18:04:00 | Re: More message encoding woes |