Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ADBDEV-6683 TLS options implemented for PXF FDW #146
base: feature/ADBDEV-6581
Are you sure you want to change the base?
ADBDEV-6683 TLS options implemented for PXF FDW #146
Changes from 2 commits
675c1dd
0592f3c
eadd22e
c62d1b5
3386d35
70f5bfb
e82be59
0075a05
97b5a3a
74f2f3d
607a381
c5d24f7
3f89be8
5ec9b9d
695aa30
f0a5d5b
d638c69
5e13f4c
54981e4
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why not simply
and in external table do similar thing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ssl_options has a type churl_ssl_options which has defined in libchurl, while pxfsstate->options is of type PxfOptions defined in the Pxf. Idea of making churl_ssl_options was to not introduce into libchurl extra dependency of higher level PXF.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
churl_set_ssl_options
function could be called differently and placed outside oflibchurl
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SSL logically looks very like an connection properties and I decided to set them as a part of libchurl.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not do something similar to
pxfsstate->churl_headers
with a common type forSSL
options?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
pxfsstate->churl_headers is a void pointer and does not discover specific type structure. Unlike it, churl_ssl_options is typed. Placing it to the pxfsstate breaks the fact that pxfsstate does not now discover churl-dependent things.
Also, instances of churl_ssl_options are used locally and independently, I don't see any need to put it into pxfsstate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why we compare not with NULL? And why do we need to allocate the second time? Can't we use the first allocation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had to allocate it second time to have it in the transaction's memory context. It's not related to the first time allocation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not to make the first allocation already in the transaction's memory context?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.