From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Lars Kanis <lars(at)greiz-reinsdorf(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libpq: Process buffered SSL read bytes to support records >8kB on async API |
Date: | 2025-03-16 13:13:56 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm0_h2PdpzCddUKv7Z3k1oDg-fBXxjrENeZh7xdHYMCWkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 04:30, Jacob Champion
<jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:08 PM Lars Kanis <lars(at)greiz-reinsdorf(dot)de> wrote:
> > How did you verify the issue on the server side - with YugabyteDB or
> > with a modified Postgres server? I'd like to verify the GSSAPI part and
> > I'm familiar with the Postgres server only.
>
> Neither, unfortunately -- I have a protocol testbed that I use for
> this kind of stuff. I'm happy to share once I get it cleaned up, but
> it's unlikely to help you in this case since I haven't implemented
> gssenc support. Patching the Postgres server itself seems like a good
> way to go.
>
> > > And are there any other sites that
> > > need to make the same guarantee before returning?
> >
> > Which other sites do you mean?
>
> I'm mostly worried that other parts of libpq might assume that a
> single call to pqReadData will drain the buffers. If not, great! --
> but I haven't had time to check all the call sites.
@Jacob, could you find some time to wrap this up? This will help us
assess whether it can be refined into a committable state soon.
Regards,
Vignesh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2025-03-16 13:16:28 | Re: Adding support for SSLKEYLOGFILE in the frontend |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-03-16 13:03:07 | Re: FSM doesn't recover after zeroing damaged page. |