Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-12-08 10:05:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... there was already opinion upthread that this should be on by
>> default, which I agree with. You shouldn't be hitting cases like
>> this commonly (if so, they're bugs to fix or the errcode should be
>> rethought), and the failure might be pretty hard to reproduce.
> FWIW, I did some analysis on aggregated logs on a larger number of machines,
> and it does look like that'd be a measurable increase in log volume. There are
> a few voluminous internal errors in core, but the bigger issue is
> extensions. They are typically much less disciplined about assigning error
> codes than core PG is.
Well, I don't see much wrong with making a push to assign error codes
to more calls. We've had other discussions about doing that.
Certainly these SSL failures are not "internal" errors.
> could not accept SSL connection: %m - with zero errno
> ...
> I'm a bit confused about the huge number of "could not accept SSL connection:
> %m" with a zero errno. I guess we must be clearing errno somehow, but I don't
> immediately see where. Or perhaps we need to actually look at what
> SSL_get_error() returns?
Hmm, don't suppose you have a way to reproduce that?
regards, tom lane
