Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-08-20 00:58:22 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> 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:
> A good reason to not have functions with the respective functions is
> that it requires either including the relevant headers or adding forward
> declarations of the libraries type.
It requires no such thing. What we do for PQgetssl() is declare it as
returning "void *", and we could easily do the same for other libraries.
regards, tom lane