Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20770.1238436532@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf
Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: