| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |
| Date: | 2009-02-10 16:06:48 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070902100806mbd4023av4561284e36ef655f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> We could do that, I guess. However, if an application passes this in to
>>> an old version of libpq, there is no way to know that it didn't know
>>> about it.
>
>> Well, you could create PQinitSSLExtended, but, as you say, the use
>> case is pretty narrow...
>
>> It would help if there were a PQgetLibraryVersion() function.
>
> Help how? There is nothing an app can do to work around the problem
> AFAICS. Or if there were, we should just document it and not change
> the code --- the use case for this is evidently too narrow to justify
> complicating libpq's API even more.
It would let you assert that you were running against a version of
libpq that has the functionality that you are attempting to use, thus
eliminating the risk of silent failure.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-10 16:14:42 | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-02-10 16:03:50 | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |