Re: Rare SSL failures on eelpout

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rare SSL failures on eelpout
Date: 2019-03-18 23:44:37
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> My current feeling is that this is OK to put in HEAD but I think the
>> risk-reward ratio isn't very good for the back branches. Even with
>> an OpenSSL version where this makes a difference, the problematic
>> behavior is pretty hard to hit. So I'm a bit inclined to do nothing
>> in the back branches.

> Shouldn't we also back-patch the one-line change adding
> pqHandleSendFailure()?

As I said before, I don't like that patch: at best it's an abuse of
pqHandleSendFailure, because that function is only meant to be called
at start of a query cycle. It wouldn't be hard to break this usage and
not notice, especially given that we often don't test back-patched
changes very carefully in the back branches if they seem OK in HEAD.

Possibly we could consider back-patching the more aggressive patch
once it's survived v12 beta testing, and just living with the issue
till then. Given what we know now, I don't think this is a big
problem for the field: how many people use SSL on local connections?

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-03-18 23:59:56 Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-03-18 23:35:17 pg_upgrade version checking questions