Re: libpq SSL with non-blocking sockets

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: libpq SSL with non-blocking sockets
Дата
Msg-id CAEYLb_XP4tjTr8EvFwraAwbBVTjPWtLvkgoxMf1Dixktm38_8g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: libpq SSL with non-blocking sockets  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: libpq SSL with non-blocking sockets
Список pgsql-hackers
On 24 July 2011 21:33, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I've applied the simplified fix (just set SSL_MODE_ACCEPT_MOVING_WRITE_BUFFER)
> as well as a patch to improve the error reporting situation.

I'm not exactly sure why, and don't have time to investigate right
now, but this commit (fee476da952a1f02f7ccf6e233fb4824c2bf6af4)
appears to have broken the build for me:

gcc -O0 -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wformat-security
-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -g -pthread  -D_REENTRANT -D_THREAD_SAFE
-D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -fpic -DFRONTEND -DUNSAFE_STAT_OK -I.
-I../../../src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE  -I../../../src/port
-I../../../src/port -DSO_MAJOR_VERSION=5  -c -o fe-misc.o fe-misc.c
-MMD -MP -MF .deps/fe-misc.Po
fe-misc.c: In function ‘pqReadData’:
fe-misc.c:651:11: error: ‘PGconn’ has no member named ‘ssl’
fe-misc.c:743:11: error: ‘PGconn’ has no member named ‘ssl’
fe-misc.c:761:10: error: ‘PGconn’ has no member named ‘ssl’
fe-misc.c: In function ‘pqSendSome’:
fe-misc.c:841:14: error: ‘PGconn’ has no member named ‘ssl’
fe-misc.c:861:14: error: ‘PGconn’ has no member named ‘ssl’

The problem goes away if I check out the commit made immediately prior
to this one - d0c23026b2499ba9d6797359241ade076a5a677d. I'm building
with my usual, rather generic settings for hacking.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: python cleanup
Следующее
От: Florian Pflug
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Initial Review: JSON contrib modul was: Re: Another swing at JSON