Re: [HACKERS] large objects

Repost just to add the information that this is [now] on 7.3.3, previously on
7.3.2.

Sorry for the noise of the incomplete previous message, although the email
lists seem to be very light this last week. Obviously the mail server is still
feeling under the weather, I presume many posts have been lost in a hole
somewhere much like another of my posts.

On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:

>
> Note, primary list address changed to -general, I'd suggest any followups
> remove the -hackers, which I've left in just for 'closure'.
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > "Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > > > Now, I did a little bit of testing and when doing a \lo_export <oid>
> > > > <filename> in psql connected via localhost a SIGPIPE is generated in
> > > > write() in libc and psql quit, without printing any message to the
> > > > terminal. Perhaps interestingly
> > > > the file that gets written is always 65536 bytes long.
> > >
> > > Hm. Are you using an SSL connection? There are some known bugs in the
> > > SSL support in 7.3.1. It's supposed to be fixed in 7.3.3, though I've
> > > not tried it myself.
> >
> > Damn, yes I am, I noticed the notice when connecting but then didn't think
> > anything of it. Thanks Tom, I'll check that later when I do have time
> > (shouldn't have wasted the precious minutes joining the NULL != "" war).
>
> Ok, I tried to try this but I can not get SSL to _not_ be used when connecting
> via any tcp connection, unless the client hasn't been built with ssl support of
> course. The pg_hba.conf has:
>
> # TYPE DATABASE USER IP-ADDRESS IP-MASK METHOD
>
> local all all md5
> host all all 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 md5
>
> psql -U me -h localhost db
>
> prints:
>
> SSL connection (cipher: EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA, bits: 168)
>
> psql -U me db
>
> doesn't.
>
> Am I losing my mind? Should I need hostssl on that second line of the config
> before ssl is allowed? I did look at that code once a few weeks ago and vaguely
> remember something about host and hostssl handling but can't remember the
> details. Is this really a bug, even if only in the documentation, or have I got
> completely the wrong end of the stick?
>

--
Nigel J. Andrews