| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| Date: | 2013-09-24 13:29:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZVGmyZLx7e4ARq_5nu4uDeN7wrvg1xJXg_o9c61CHu3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Here's an updated version; this mainly simplifies code, per comments
> from Andres (things were a bit too baroque in places due to the way the
> code had evolved, and I hadn't gone over it to simplify it).
>
> The only behavior change is that the renegotiation is requested 1kB
> before the limit is hit: the raise to 1% of the configured limit was
> removed.
What basis do we have for thinking that 1kB is definitely enough to
avoid spurious disconnects?
(I have a bad feeling that you're going to say something along the
lines of "well, we tried it a bunch of times, and...".)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-09-24 16:30:47 | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-09-23 20:51:24 | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-09-24 13:31:53 | Re: record identical operator |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-09-24 13:26:05 | Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL |