Horton

Re: SSL renegotiation

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-11-15T15:43:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> So I committed this patch without backpatching anything. ...
> ... should we wait longer for the new renegotiation code to
> be more battle-tested?

+1 to waiting awhile.  I think if we don't see any problems in
HEAD, then back-patching as-is would be the best solution.
The other alternatives are essentially acknowledging that you're
back-patching something you're afraid isn't production ready.
Let's not go there.

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".

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Well, the discussion about SSL a bit back perked my interest and I did