| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| Date: | 2013-11-15 15:49:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20131115154950.GC5489@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-11-15 10:43:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> +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.
Agreed. Both on just backpatching it unchanged and waiting for the fix
to prove itself a bit.
> 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".
Well, there have been a bunch of customer complaints about it, afair
that's what made Alvaro look into it in the first place. So it's not a
victimless bug.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-15 15:58:19 | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-15 15:43:23 | Re: SSL renegotiation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-11-15 15:56:19 | Re: strncpy is not a safe version of strcpy |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-11-15 15:48:09 | Re: strncpy is not a safe version of strcpy |