Re: SSL renegotiation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(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 15:58:19
Message-ID: 23255.1384531099@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2013-11-15 10:43:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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".

> Well, there have been a bunch of customer complaints about it, afair
> that's what made Alvaro look into it in the first place. So it's not a
> victimless bug.

OK, then maybe end-of-beta is too long. But how much testing will it get
during development? I know I never use SSL on development installs.
How many hackers do?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-11-15 16:05:29 Re: SSL renegotiation
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-11-15 15:49:50 Re: SSL renegotiation

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-11-15 16:04:57 Re: [PATCH] Add transforms feature
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2013-11-15 15:56:19 Re: strncpy is not a safe version of strcpy