| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5585: SSL problems with long COPYs |
| Date: | 2010-08-01 14:34:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4992.1280673291@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> writes:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> how exactly did you measure the 1GB?
> The reported copy table size in the SLON log. It exceeded 1GB for two
> of the tables the successfully came over before the error.
Hmm, I'm not sure how Slony comes by that number, so this might or might
not be meaningful. I agree with the other respondents that the symptom
sounds exactly like broken renegotiation --- the earliest security
patches to close the openssl CVE hole resulted in failures exactly like
this whenever the server tried to force key renegotiation. You might
check whether libssl was recently updated on either the server or client
machine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl Denninger | 2010-08-01 14:41:52 | Re: BUG #5585: SSL problems with long COPYs |
| Previous Message | Karl Denninger | 2010-08-01 14:12:31 | Re: BUG #5585: SSL problems with long COPYs |