From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Direct SSL connection and ALPN loose ends |
Date: | 2024-06-17 14:11:06 |
Message-ID: | CAOYmi+nwvu21mJ4DYKUa98HdfM_KZJi7B1MhyXtnsyOO-PB6Ww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 8:24 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I was mostly worried about the refactoring of the
> retry logic in libpq (and about the pre-existing logic too to be honest,
> it was complicated before these changes already).
Some changes in the v17 negotiation fallback order caught my eye:
1. For sslmode=prefer, a modern v3 error during negotiation now
results in a fallback to plaintext. For v16 this resulted in an
immediate failure. (v2 errors retain the v16 behavior.)
2. For gssencmode=prefer, a legacy v2 error during negotiation now
results in an immediate failure. In v16 it allowed fallback to SSL or
plaintext depending on sslmode.
Are both these changes intentional/desirable? Change #1 seems to
partially undo the decision made in a49fbaaf:
> Don't assume that "E" response to NEGOTIATE_SSL_CODE means pre-7.0 server.
>
> These days, such a response is far more likely to signify a server-side
> problem, such as fork failure. [...]
>
> Hence, it seems best to just eliminate the assumption that backing off
> to non-SSL/2.0 protocol is the way to recover from an "E" response, and
> instead treat the server error the same as we would in non-SSL cases.
Thanks,
--Jacob
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Pyhalov | 2024-06-17 14:51:30 | Inconsistency between try_mergejoin_path and create_mergejoin_plan |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-06-17 14:01:27 | Re: Using LibPq in TAP tests via FFI |