| From: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |
| Date: | 2009-02-13 19:59:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4995D123.5010003@esilo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> writes:
>>> 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)
>
> I know what you're thinking the flags should mean, I'm saying that it's
> not possible for the third case to be sane. It implies that the
> application initialized ssl but not crypto, which isn't possible.
>
Or that the application called PQinitSSLExtended(0, 1) and then
initialized SSL itself, which is sane.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-13 20:06:03 | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-13 19:49:03 | Re: PQinitSSL broken in some use casesf |