Message-ID: <53F3C87E.2080401@vmware.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:58:22 +0300
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Organization: VMware
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL-development
 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PQgetssl() and alternative SSL implementations
References: <53F1E989.8020609@vmware.com>
	<CA+TgmoZDJ6CKiuBMqNk3iS7LQ9GZuzS7RTYSOvRu8kJjRKWLng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevExpTZpMAMvr=BkeO5-XG_zgZP=TKdyCCpgEpYc0Htjr8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<10419.1408475397@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CABUevEy03OvP3N3wBRVP7BcmwcHf=Qi6Crb2MHo4dVmG--ZnVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaKHd+HW8kOgzovdSTWhauEsV0qeRsxPLpEZfSNDiSP=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoaKHd+HW8kOgzovdSTWhauEsV0qeRsxPLpEZfSNDiSP=g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 08/19/2014 10:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have a hard time believing that something like this will really
>>>>> satisfy anyone.  Why not just add PQgetSchannelHandleOrWhatever() and
>>>>> call it good?  We can try to be incredibly thorough in exposing the
>>>>> information people want and we will still inevitably miss something
>>>>> that someone cares about; worse, we'll spend an awful lot of time and
>>>>> energy along the way.
>>>
>>>> Well, for one you push the full burden onto the application.
>>>
>>> Robert's got a point though: there is always going to be somebody who
>>> wants something we fail to expose.  It's better to be able to say "well,
>>> you can do PQgetssl and then munge it for yourself" than to have to say
>>> "sorry, you're screwed".  So if we're going to define PQgetssl as
>>> returning NULL when you're not using OpenSSL, I don't see why we
>>> shouldn't expose a similarly-defined PQgetXXX for each other underlying
>>> implementation we support.  There will not be that many of 'em, and
>>> I suspect the people with very specific needs will not care about more
>>> than one underlying library anyway.
>>>
>>> This does not say that we shouldn't also try to have some
>>> library-independent functionality for interrogating certificate state
>>> etc.  Just that having an escape hatch isn't a bad thing.

Yeah, wouldn't hurt I guess.

>> I do agree tha thaving both would be useful. We could have something like
>> int PQgetSSLstruct(void **sslstruct)
>
> I think it's likely smarter to have totally separate functions.
> First, to make it less likely that users will try to use a pointer to
> one type of object as a pointer to some other kind of object.  And
> second, because you might, for example, someday have an SSL
> implementation that wants to return two pointers.  May as well make
> that kind of thing easy.

The struct it returns is totally SSL-implementation specific anyway, so 
for an implementation that would like to return two structs, you could 
well define it to return a struct like:

struct {
     CoolStructA *a;
     CoolStructB *b;
} CoolSSLStruct;

I don't much like adding a separate function for every SSL 
implementation, but you've got a point that it would be nice to make it 
difficult to call PQgetSSLstruct() and just assume that the returned 
struct is e.g an OpenSSL struct, while it's actually something else. 
Perhaps:

int PQgetSSLstruct(void **sslstruct, char *structname)

You'd call it like PQgetSSLStruct(&mystruct, "openssl"), and it checks 
that the argument matches the library actually been used, otherwise it 
returns an error. And if you need to return two structs, you'd call it 
twice: PQgetSSLStruct(&a, "cool_a") and PQgetSSLStruct(&b, "cool_b").

- Heikki


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers