Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I think there is a good argument that PQinitSSL(X) where X > 1 would
> work fine for more fine-grained control.  The new libpq init function
> idea was interesting, but having a documented solution for
> WSAStartup()/WSACleanup() usage, we now don't have another libpq init
> use-case so it is hard to suggest a new libpq function.

If you look back through the list, the PQinit idea was offered up 
several times while discussing WSA* stuff.  There were few buyers.  I 
don't see how having or not having a documented solution for WSA* usage 
would make a bit of difference.

> 
> I am figuring we have to keep the current behavior and see what happens
> after 8.4;  the new documentation should make the behavior clear and
> perhaps trigger other users to report suggestions.
> 
> 

This is not a battle I find worth fighting.  But I am having trouble 
staying completely quiet; I typically have this issue when I disagree :)  This patch merely documents the problem, when
anotherfully documented 
 
working patch "fixed" it; following the discussions on the list.

http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2009-02/msg01018.php

Was this reviewed and/or rejected?

Andrew Chernow