Re: Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm)

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm)
Date: 2009-07-27 08:55:44
Message-ID: 3f0b79eb0907270155h43c99cbcw217d0d908749225b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Oh, another gripe: I'll bet a nickel that this doesn't work very nicely
> under SSL.  Bytes available on the socket doesn't necessarily equate to
> decrypted payload bytes being available.  Depending on how you're using
> secure_poll, that might be okay, but it seems like a hazard waiting to
> trap unwary maintainers.

Is it only necessary to add the comment about how to use secure_poll?

There is the assumption that secure_poll must be used with secure_write/read
(e.g., in read case, pq_recvbuf instead of native recv should be called after
passing pq_wait). So, it's assumed that encrypted data are resolved in those
R/W functions and only decrypted data are located in buffer.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2009-07-27 09:01:44 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reserve the shared memory region during backend startup on
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-07-27 08:20:31 Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff