> -----Original Message----- > From: Martijn van Oosterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 April 2006 09:15 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Hiroshi Inoue > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Practical impediment to supporting > multiple SSL libraries > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:48:54AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > > Well, we had a pure custom implementation of the protocol, > had a pure > > libpq based version and after much discussion decided that the best > > version of all was the hybrid as it allowed us to hijack > features like > > SSL, Kerberos, pgpass et al, yet not be constrained by the > limitations > > of libpq, or copy query results about so much. > > Right. Would you see value in a more formal libpq "hijack-me" > interface that would support making the initial connection > and then handing off the rest to something else? > > I'm wondering because obviously with the current setup, if > libpq is compiled with SSL support, psqlODBC must also be. > Are there any points where you have to fight libpq over > control of the socket? > > I'm thinking that such an interface would need to provide the > following: > > read (sync/async) > write (sync/async) > getfd (for select/poll) > ispending (is there stuff to do) > release (for when you're finished) > > Is there anything else you might need?
I'll have to let Hiroshi comment on that as he wrote the code. I've only skimmed over it a few times so far. Regards, Dave. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
