Andrew Chernow wrote: > 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.
It only means we don't have _another_ use for a more general libpq init function. > > 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 another fully 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? Comments Tom made were that there was no consensus on the proper fix/direction, and I agree. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers