| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-04 11:57:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1228391866.20796.541.camel@hp_dx2400_1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 12:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Understood. Is the periodic renegotiation of keys something that would
> > interfere with the performance or robustness of replication? Is the
> > delay likely to effect sync rep? I'm just checking we've thought about
> > it.
>
> It will certainly add an extra piece of delay. But if you are worried
> about performance for it, you are likely not running SSL. Plus, if you
> don't renegotiate the key, you gamble with security.
>
> If it does have a negative effect on the robustness of the replication,
> we should just recommend against using it - or refuse to use - not
> disable renegotiation.
I didn't mean to imply renegotiation might optional. I just wanted to
check whether there is anything to worry about as a result of it, there
may not be. *If* it took a long time, I would not want sync commits to
wait for it.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-12-04 12:31:05 | Re: In-place upgrade: catalog side |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-12-04 11:41:04 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |