Re: Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5

From: Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <Pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allow ssl_renegotiation_limit in PG 9.5
Date: 2015-10-16 17:00:05
Message-ID: CADT4RqBLE2nqQw7vTe+issB9b79ZeXAsD=KFz0kR38aqVh5zqg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> > > If not, the only solution I can see is for PostgreSQL to not protest
> if it
> > > sees the
> > > parameter in the startup packet.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, that's the ideal solution here as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Well, it seems that's where we're ending up then. Could you prepare a
> patch?
>

Yes, will do so in the coming days, thanks!

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2015-10-16 17:30:20 Re: Proposal: SET ROLE hook
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-10-16 16:28:16 Re: Proposal: SET ROLE hook