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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to