On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > But having said that ... are we sure this code is not actually broken? > I'm not. > ISTM that if we dare not interrupt for fear of confusing OpenSSL, we > cannot safely attempt to send an error message to the client either; > but ereport(FATAL) will try exactly that. > I thought since FATAL will force the backend to exit, we don't care much about corrupted OpenSSL state. I even thought that's why we raise ERROR to FATAL so that the backend can start in a clean state. But clearly I'm missing a point here because you don't think that way. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee
