| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Zuelke <dz(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for OpenSSL error queue bug |
| Date: | 2016-04-07 07:47:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRBnW3tMg_KE3fn=8VjC8HpkQ=Pi===jrAsV4pidSh3hA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> Will this make it into the next point release? I was rather hoping it would.
>
> I dunno. I certainly haven't reviewed it carefully enough to commit it.
> Perhaps Peter has, but time grows short ...
I have looked at this patch. Do we need to worry as well about
SSL_shutdown in disconnection code path? I believe that we don't care
much if an error happens at this point but we surely should consume
any error generated because the SSL context is kept after
destroy_ssl_system and another connection attempt may be done using
the same SSL context, no?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-07 07:55:15 | Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-04-07 06:34:01 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |