Seth Robertson wrote:
> In message <14727.1241816192@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Tom Lane writes:
>
> > It is of course possible to support both at the same time (at
> > compile-time, if nowhere else).
>
> Yes, I suppose we'd not wish to just drop openssl completely.
> I wonder how much code duplication would ensue from a compile-time
> choice of which library to use ...
>
> My only datapoint for you is curl, which is an application I happen to
> have discovered that can use either NSS and OpenSSL.
>
> Lines Words Chars Filename
> 2508 7890 74682 ssluse.c
> 1331 3708 36411 nss.c
IIRC, they also support gnutls. So we can probably get hints there about
how to get this support if we want to :-)
> I imagine that you would more or less have to provide a different
> be-secure.c and fe-secure.c file for the two different
> libraries--whether as a separate file or via #ifdefs. It looks like
> there is a small amount of common code present (why *is*
> pg_block_sigpipe() in that file anyway?)
Clearly this would be a good time to fix such abstraction errors if we
decide to go ahead :-)
-- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
