On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:23:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Dave Page" <dpage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Err, what? It uses PQsocket & PQgetssl, both of which are official, > > supported functions that may be being used by countless other apps for > > all we know. > > Dave, weren't you paying attention to the recent discussion? GnuTLS > support will break anything using PQgetSSL, because it can't return > an OpenSSL struct if the underlying SSL library is GnuTLS. The current > thought is to return NULL, so as not to have apps actually crash by > trying to pass a GnuTLS struct to OpenSSL routines, but that isn't going > to make psqlODBC *work* in such a situation. You'd need to add code > that knows how to work with GnuTLS. It's a messy situation. I hope we're not going require users to include both GnuTLS and OpenSSL in their source given you can't actually #include both in the same source easily (namespace issues). Like you say, backward compatability is important. > Martijn is being a bit disingenuous by giving the impression that > acceptance of his patch is a done deal. The compatibility issues > are serious enough that it's quite possible we'll reject it. Ouch. I hope I didn't give anyone that impression, I'd prefer to say I was being optimistic because I don't think the problems are insurmountable. I only wanted to point out that there's no point someone doing this as an SoC project before the associated issues have been sorted out... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
