Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.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. > > > Yes, +1 for backpatching. Don't forget 5674460b and b1aebbb6. > > Huh? 5674460b is ancient, and we concluded that b1aebbb6 didn't represent > anything much more than cosmetic fixes.
Sorry, I mixed up 5674460b with 36a3be65 which you already mentioned ... and I see that because of the conclusions from 272923a0a695 then the one-char change in b1aebbb6 is not very interesting. I do think that perhaps we should simplify the code down to what 272923a0a695 + 1c2b7c0879d8 do. I also agree that the other changes by Andres and Heikki, which involve making all communication use a nonblocking socket, seem too invasive to backpatch; even with the insurance provided by beta+release, the disruptiveness of changes seems a bit too high, considering that 387da18874a apparently cannot be used without 4f85fde8eb which is a bit scary in itself. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
