Re: libpq WSACleanup is not needed

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Yeah. So the question is, do we want to bite the bullet and create
>> init() and uninit() functions for libpq?
> 
> I think if calling them is an optimization that improves performance
> (by eliminating per-connection-start overhead), this could fly.  If
> the plan is "we are going to require applications to call these
> or they'll break", it's not going to be acceptable ...
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 

My suggestion was to make calling the init/uninit optional (well uninit should 
only be optional if init was not called).  I think libpq should behave 
identically if init() is never called.  What init() gets you is the ability to 
fine tune libpq (change the default behaviors).  For instance: a bit mask 
argument to init() called "options", that allows one to toggle things on/off in 
libpq: like PG_OPT_NOWSAINIT or PG_OPT_NOSSLINIT.  It may requrie something like 
to be expandable:

int
PQinit(int info_type, void *info_struct, int options);

I'm just spit-ball'n here.  My point is, its could be a good place to allow run 
time configuration of libpq.

-- 
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/