| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| Date: | 2013-11-15 15:43:23 |
| Message-ID: | 22907.1384530203@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So I committed this patch without backpatching anything. ...
> ... should we wait longer for the new renegotiation code to
> be more battle-tested?
+1 to waiting awhile. I think if we don't see any problems in
HEAD, then back-patching as-is would be the best solution.
The other alternatives are essentially acknowledging that you're
back-patching something you're afraid isn't production ready.
Let's not go there.
Another reason I'm not in a hurry is that the problem we're trying
to solve doesn't seem to be causing real-world trouble. So by
"awhile", I'm thinking "let's let it get through 9.4 beta testing".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-15 15:49:50 | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-11-15 14:33:17 | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-11-15 15:48:09 | Re: strncpy is not a safe version of strcpy |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-11-15 15:27:44 | Re: strncpy is not a safe version of strcpy |