Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I have a hard time believing that something like this will really >> satisfy anyone. Why not just add PQgetSchannelHandleOrWhatever() and >> call it good? We can try to be incredibly thorough in exposing the >> information people want and we will still inevitably miss something >> that someone cares about; worse, we'll spend an awful lot of time and >> energy along the way.
> Well, for one you push the full burden onto the application. Robert's got a point though: there is always going to be somebody who wants something we fail to expose. It's better to be able to say "well, you can do PQgetssl and then munge it for yourself" than to have to say "sorry, you're screwed". So if we're going to define PQgetssl as returning NULL when you're not using OpenSSL, I don't see why we shouldn't expose a similarly-defined PQgetXXX for each other underlying implementation we support. There will not be that many of 'em, and I suspect the people with very specific needs will not care about more than one underlying library anyway. This does not say that we shouldn't also try to have some library-independent functionality for interrogating certificate state etc. Just that having an escape hatch isn't a bad thing. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers