On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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
