| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, 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: | 2015-10-17 13:39:52 |
| Message-ID: | 30975.1445089192@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Having to backpatch a new parameter to all supported versions seems far
> more invasive than adding a guc that can only be set to one value.
Indeed. It is completely stupid to do this in any other way except
by reinstating ssl_renegotiation_limit as an ordinary GUC variable
whose min and max are both zero.
Quite aside from the implementation effort of inventing some
single-purpose kluge to do it another way, that solution would also
cover the complaints we're doubtless gonna get that "SET
ssl_renegotiation_limit = 0" doesn't work anymore.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-10-17 13:58:24 | Re: remaining open items |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-10-17 13:16:34 | Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes |