Re: Missing include in be-secure-openssl.c?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Missing include in be-secure-openssl.c?
Дата
Msg-id 319425.1636034047@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Missing include in be-secure-openssl.c?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Ответы Re: Missing include in be-secure-openssl.c?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 11:45:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I noted the comment about WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN in the
>> stackoverflow thread too ... but as you say, it seems like
>> that should make the problem less probable not more so.
>> Still, it's hard to think of any other relevant change.

> Yeah, I don't see how this could be linked to WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN.

According to that stackoverflow thread, the unwanted #define of
X509_NAME comes from <wincrypt.h>, and WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN
prevents that from being immediately included by <windows.h>.

The rough idea I have is that prior to 8162464a2, we sucked in
that #define during postgres.h and then OpenSSL's headers were
able to undo it.  After 8162464a2, we don't read <wincrypt.h>
during postgres.h, but some *other* header that be-secure-openssl.c
is including after the OpenSSL headers is pulling it in, so that
by the time we get to the body of the file the unwanted #define
is active.

I don't have either the resources or the interest to track down
exactly where that happens; my thought was just to make
be-secure-openssl.c's inclusions look more like fe-secure-openssl.c.
But, if you'd like to pursue the details, feel free.

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Hamlin, Garick L"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg14 psql broke \d datname.nspname.relname
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Extending amcheck to check toast size and compression