Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I do not know at this point whether these behaviors are really the same >> bug or not, but I wonder whether it's time to consider back-patching the >> renegotiation fixes we did in 9.4. Specifically, I think maybe we should >> back-patch 31cf1a1a4, 86029b31e, and 36a3be654. (There are more changes >> in master, but since those haven't yet shipped in any released branch, >> and there's been a lot of other rework in the same area, those probably >> are not back-patch candidates.) >> >> Thoughts?
> I have no clear idea how safe it is to back-port these fixes. Well, it would mean that pre-9.5 branches all behave the same, which would be an improvement in my book. Also, ISTM that the 9.4 code for renegotiation assumes a whole lot less than prior branches about OpenSSL's internal behavior; so it ought to be more robust, even if some bugs remain. > Just as a point of reference, we had a customer hit a problem similar > to bug #12769 on 9.3.x. I think (but am not sure) that 272923a0a may > have been intended to fix that issue. In a quick search, I didn't > find any other complaints about renegotiation-related issues from our > customers. The problem with trying to adopt code from HEAD is that it probably depends on the rather invasive changes explained here: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150126101405.ga31...@awork2.anarazel.de Even assuming that there's no dependency on the immediate-interrupt changes, I'm afraid to back-patch anything that invasive. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
