Andrew Chernow wrote:
At this point I like Merlin's proposal of a third parameter value to
PQinitSSL the best.
I'm not opposed to it, although I don't think it is as clean as a new
function.
Also, this definition feels a bit wrong --- it's not possible for
all four cases to be valid, is it?
Yes it is.
PQinitSSLExtended(0, 0); // don't init anything, PQinitSSL(0)
PQinitSSLExtended(1, 0); // init ssl, don't init crypto
PQinitSSLExtended(0, 1); // don't init ssl, init crypto
PQinitSSLExtended(1, 1); // init both, default behavior, PQinitSSL(1)
Maybe the argument to PQinitSSLExtended should be a bit mask, making
this version more extendable ... PG_INITSSL, PG_INITCRYPTO?
Also, how about calling this PQinitSecure(int flags), since SSL is only
one thing it can init. This is just like merlin's suggestion but
without hacking the existing PQinitSSL.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
