Re: [HACKERS] postmaster dead on startup from unportable SSL patch
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] postmaster dead on startup from unportable SSL patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199909301753.NAA03560@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | postmaster dead on startup from unportable SSL patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Someone had the bright idea that the postmaster's -i switch could > be redefined as > -i same as it ever was > -is accept only SSL connections > > Unfortunately, implementing that requires a getopt() that understands > the GNU double-colon extension ("i::"). HPUX's getopt, which claims > to be fully conformant to POSIX.2 and about six other standards, > doesn't grok it. Net result: postmaster is quitting on startup with > a "usage" message for me. Doubtless it will also fail on most other > non-GNU-libc platforms. > > Unless we want to get into the business of supplying a substitute > optarg() library routine, we're going to have to pick a more portable > switch syntax for SSL. (I might also point out that "-is" used to > have a quite different interpretation, ie "-i -s", which could trip > up someone somewhere.) -is is a totally broken option flag. > > I can see two reasonable choices: (a) pick a currently-unused > switch letter that you specify *in addition to* -i, if you want > only secure connections; (b) pick a currently-unused switch letter > that you specify *instead of* -i, if you want only secure connections. > > I'd lean towards (a) except that both of the obvious choices, -s and -S, > are already taken. If we go with (b), -I is available and perhaps not > a totally off-the-wall choice, but I can't say I really like it. I like option (a). Just pick any letter for the additional SSL flag . It is SSL, you can use -L or -l. I would like to keep -i as required, so when we tell people they have to use -i, they really have to use -i for INET connection, not -i or -L. > > Comments? Ideas? Is it time to give up on getopt and go to multiletter > switch names? (Of course that would break a lot of people's startup > scripts... but we may someday be forced into it... maybe it's better > to bite the bullet now.) No, I don't think so. long opt names are more a headache than just picking any new letter. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: