Re: BUG #5585: SSL problems with long COPYs

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
>
I've turned off SSL for now and the copy appears to be proceeding
normally. I'll see if I can isolate this further once I have the
replication stabilized again - I have a test box I can set up as a third
node off one of the others on a higher-bandwidth connection, which will
make testing this in some more detail easier and faster.

I've also shut off SSL renegotiation for now and will leave it off until
I can figure out what's up - if it breaks during my testing with
renegotiation off (or not) I'll update here.

-- Karl