| From: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Experiments with Postgres and SSL |
| Date: | 2023-01-19 05:45:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAAhFRxhS7vi-HPNkDyvOGCqnx6SX2s4n-hPcOddXN5+Fpw94wA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:16 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> So I took a look into what it would take to do and I think it would
> actually be quite feasible. The first byte of a standard TLS
> connection can't look anything like the first byte of any flavour of
> Postgres startup packet because it would be the high order bits of the
> length so unless we start having multi-megabyte startup packets....
>
This is a fascinating idea! I like it a lot.
But..do we have to treat any unknown start sequence of bytes as a TLS
connection? Or is there some definite subset of possible first bytes
that clearly indicates that this is a TLS connection or not?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2023-01-19 05:47:03 | bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-19 05:40:46 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |