Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On 30 mar 2009, at 17.24, Andrew Chernow <ac@esilo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> BTW, unless someone objects I'd like to make the name of that  
>>>> function
>>>> PQinitSecurity.
>>> Agreed.  Although, both PQinitSecure and PQinitSecurity are very  
>>> general names.  "Security" can mean a lot of things.  Maybe the name  
>>> should be more particular, like PQinitOpenSSL.  I think its okay to  
>>> reference the openssl project name being how this function is  
>>> designed to work with openssl's library split.
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> It's quite likely that well want to support another ssl library in the  
>> future. At least likely enough that any api we define should take it  
>> into consideration.
> 
> Are we sure we don't want to add a more general libpq initialization
> control at this time?
> 
>     PQinitOptions(PG_NO_SSL_INIT | PG_NO_CRYPTO_INIT);

Could be an option but if we go down that path, it needs to be
PG_NO_OPENSSL_SSL_INIT and PG_NO_OPENSSL_CRYPTO_INIT....

//Magnus