Leftover member in openssl part of Port struct

Started by Daniel Gustafssonover 9 years ago3 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Daniel Gustafsson
daniel@yesql.se

When SSL renegotiation was removed in 426746b9 the only consumer of the openssl
specific count member in the Port struct was removed, but the member was left
together with a few updates to it which are unused. Attached patch removes the
leftovers which now serves no purpose unless I’m missing something.

cheers ./daniel

Attachments:

0001-Remove-leftover-member-count-in-Port.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=0001-Remove-leftover-member-count-in-Port.patchDownload+0-10
#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Daniel Gustafsson (#1)
Re: Leftover member in openssl part of Port struct

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:

When SSL renegotiation was removed in 426746b9 the only consumer of the openssl
specific count member in the Port struct was removed, but the member was left
together with a few updates to it which are unused. Attached patch removes the
leftovers which now serves no purpose unless I’m missing something.

Hm, well, we can't remove those case labels as control would then end
up in the default case which throws an error. But otherwise this seems
sound. Without renegotiation the count is not very useful anyway
since it's likely to overflow (at least if long is 32 bits).

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

#3Daniel Gustafsson
daniel@yesql.se
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: Leftover member in openssl part of Port struct

On 31 Aug 2016, at 15:12, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:

When SSL renegotiation was removed in 426746b9 the only consumer of the openssl
specific count member in the Port struct was removed, but the member was left
together with a few updates to it which are unused. Attached patch removes the
leftovers which now serves no purpose unless I’m missing something.

Hm, well, we can't remove those case labels as control would then end
up in the default case which throws an error.

Doh, I’ll go stand in the corner.

But otherwise this seems
sound. Without renegotiation the count is not very useful anyway
since it's likely to overflow (at least if long is 32 bits).

Yeah. Thanks for applying.

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