Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches.
> The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the
> dry if they've uncommented the default value, or changed it. That
> doesn't seem nice to me.
I think at least 99% of the people who are using a nondefault value of
ssl_renegotiation_limit are using zero and so would have no problem with
this at all. Possibly 100% of them; there's not really much use-case for
changing from 512MB to some other nonzero value, is there?
regards, tom lane