2009/11/27 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The discussion I saw suggested that you need such a patch at both ends.
>> and likely requires a restart of both postgresql and slony afterwards...
> Actually, after looking through the available info about this:
> I think my comment above is wrong. It is useful to patch the
> *server*-side library to reject a renegotiation request. Applying that
> patch on the client side, however, is useless and simply breaks things.
I haven't looked into the details but - is there a point for us to
remove the requests for renegotiation completely? Will this help those
that *haven't* upgraded their openssl library? I realize it's not
necessarily our bug to fix, but if we can help.. :) If a patched
version of openssl ignores the renegotiation anyway, there's nothing
lost if we turn it off in postgresql, is there?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2009-11-30 21:22:25|
|Subject: Re: New VACUUM FULL|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-11-30 21:18:59|
|Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks|