| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Sean Chittenden" <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |
| Date: | 2003-04-11 03:11:32 |
| Message-ID: | 041901c2ffd8$0e1018f0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
> Yeah, I looked at mod_ssl before sending in my gripe. AFAICT Apache
> *never* forces a renegotiation based on amount of data sent --- all that
> code is intended just to handle transitions between different webpages
> with different security settings. So is that a precedent we can follow;
> or is it an optimization based on the assumption that not a lot of data
> will be transferred on any one web page?
How about a GUC variable:
ssl_renegotiation = 0 # no unnecessary renegotiation
ssl_renegotiation = 64000 # renegotiate every 64000 bytes
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-04-11 03:17:57 | Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-11 03:05:53 | Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-04-11 03:17:57 | Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-11 03:05:53 | Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |