Bruce Momjian wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On 30 mar 2009, at 17.24, Andrew Chernow <a...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers