Re: Question regarding SSL code in backend and frontend

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question regarding SSL code in backend and frontend
Date: 2012-04-04 15:57:10
Message-ID: 27393.1333555030@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Those code fragment judges the return value from
> SSL_read(). secure_read() does retrying when SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ *and*
> SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE returned. However, pqsecure_read() does not retry
> when SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ. It seems they are not consistent. Comments?

There's no particular reason why they should be consistent, I think.
The assumptions for nonblocking operation are different.

I rather wonder whether the #ifdef WIN32 bit in the backend isn't dead
code though. If the port isn't in nonblock mode, we shouldn't really
get here at all, should we?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2012-04-04 15:59:07 Re: Question regarding SSL code in backend and frontend
Previous Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2012-04-04 15:12:50 Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework