| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?) |
| Date: | 2015-06-26 19:39:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20150626193926.GC30708@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-06-26 15:36:53 -0400, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
> > > entirely drop the renegotiation support.
> >
> > I think by now we essentially concluded that we should do that. What I'm
> > not sure yet is how: Do we want to rip it out in master and just change
> > the default in the backbranches, or do we want to rip it out in all
> > branches and leave a faux guc in place in the back branches. I vote for
> > the latter, but would be ok with both variants.
> >
> >
> 3. Change the "default" and make the guc impotent - in the back
> branches. Its minimally invasive and accomplishes the same user-facing
> goal as "ripping it out".
What would be the point of that? The code is pretty localized, so
leaving it in, but unreachable, seems to have no benefits.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-06-26 19:39:46 | Re: BRIN index bug due to WAL refactoring |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-06-26 19:36:53 | Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?) |