| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Zuelke <dz(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for OpenSSL error queue bug |
| Date: | 2016-03-14 23:11:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTxa4a-CCJJiDipt6n6Z5Sorm0LOt6R986oySg0D2WY9A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So your proposal is basically to do #2 in all branches? I won't fight it,
> if it doesn't bloat the code much. The overhead should surely be trivial
> compared to network communication costs, and I'm afraid you might be right
> about the risk of latent bugs.
Yes, with one small difference: I wouldn't be calling ERR_get_error()
in the common case where SSL_get_error() returns SSL_ERROR_NONE, on
the theory that skipping that case represents no risk. I'm making a
concession to Peter E's view that that will calling ERR_get_error()
more will add useless cycles.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robbie Harwood | 2016-03-14 23:20:47 | Re: [PATCH v6] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Robbie Harwood | 2016-03-14 23:11:42 | [PATCH v7] GSSAPI encryption support |