On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > So your proposal is basically to do #2 in all branches? I won't fight it, > if it doesn't bloat the code much. The overhead should surely be trivial > compared to network communication costs, and I'm afraid you might be right > about the risk of latent bugs.
Yes, with one small difference: I wouldn't be calling ERR_get_error() in the common case where SSL_get_error() returns SSL_ERROR_NONE, on the theory that skipping that case represents no risk. I'm making a concession to Peter E's view that that will calling ERR_get_error() more will add useless cycles. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
