| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timeout parameters |
| Date: | 2019-03-18 14:13:11 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob2K58sXrRjX_pgT=dabUTzfzfKEZjV-Cq-xQQM6YxRAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 9:08 PM Jamison, Kirk <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> The main argument here is about the security risk of allowing socket timeout
> to cancel valid connections, right?
I don't think so. I think it's just a weirdly-design parameter
without a really compelling use case. Enforcing limits on the value
of the parameter doesn't fix that. Most of the reviewers who have
opined so far have been somewhere between cautious and negative about
the value of that parameter, so I think we should just not add it. At
least for now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-18 14:13:46 | Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-18 14:09:57 | Re: Possible to modify query language in an extension? |