> On 19 Aug 2017, at 23:13, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com <mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com>> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: >>> Attached is an updated set of patches, rebased on top of master, with bug >>> fixes >>> and additional features missing in the first set. While not complete >>> (yet), in >>> case anyone is testing this I’d rather send a fresh batch rather than >>> sitting >>> on them too long while I keep hacking at the docs. While not every part of >>> this rather large changeset has been touched, this includes all the patches >>> for >>> completeness sake. >> >> Hi, >> >> +#if defined(USE_OPENSSL) || defined(USE_SECURETRANSPORT) >> #define USE_SSL >> +#if defined(USE_OPENSSL) >> +#define SSL_LIBRARY "OpenSSL" >> +#elif defined(USE_SECURETRANSPORT) >> +#define SSL_LIBRARY "Secure Transport" >> +#endif >> #endif >> >> If you configure with neither --with-securetransport nor >> --with-openssl then SSL_LIBRARY finishes up undefined, and then guc.c >> doesn't compile: >> >> ccache gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith >> -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels >> -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing >> -fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard -g -O2 -I. -I. >> -I../../../../src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o guc.o guc.c >> guc.c:3309:3: error: ‘SSL_LIBRARY’ undeclared here (not in a function) >> SSL_LIBRARY, >> ^~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> I guess it should have a fallback definition, though I don't know what >> it should be. > > Or maybe the guc should only exist if SSL_LIBRARY is defined?
I think the intended use case of the GUC should drive the decision on fallback. If the GUC isn’t supposed to be a way to figure out if the server was built with SSL support, then not existing in non-SSL backends is fine. If, however, we want to allow using the GUC to see if the server has SSL support, then there needs to be a “None” or similar value for that case. Personally I think there is risk of regrets down the line if this GUC is used for two things, but thats more of a gut feeling than scientifically studied. Clearly there shouldn’t be a compilation error in either case, sorry about missing that in the submission. cheers ./daniel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
