Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On 30 mar 2009, at 17.24, Andrew Chernow <ac@esilo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> BTW, unless someone objects I'd like to make the name of that
>>>> function
>>>> PQinitSecurity.
>>> Agreed. Although, both PQinitSecure and PQinitSecurity are very
>>> general names. "Security" can mean a lot of things. Maybe the name
>>> should be more particular, like PQinitOpenSSL. I think its okay to
>>> reference the openssl project name being how this function is
>>> designed to work with openssl's library split.
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> It's quite likely that well want to support another ssl library in the
>> future. At least likely enough that any api we define should take it
>> into consideration.
>
> Are we sure we don't want to add a more general libpq initialization
> control at this time?
>
> PQinitOptions(PG_NO_SSL_INIT | PG_NO_CRYPTO_INIT);
Could be an option but if we go down that path, it needs to be
PG_NO_OPENSSL_SSL_INIT and PG_NO_OPENSSL_CRYPTO_INIT....
//Magnus
