On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
+1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches.
The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the
dry if they've uncommented the default value, or changed it. That
On 2015-06-27 12:10:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
+1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches.
The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the
dry if
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation support.
I think by now we essentially concluded that we should do that. What I'm
not sure yet is
On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation support.
I think by now we essentially concluded that we should do that. What I'm
not sure yet is how: Do we want to rip it out in master and
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation support.
I think by now we essentially concluded that we should
On 2015-06-26 15:36:53 -0400, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-24 16:41:48 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation
On Jun 24, 2015 7:40 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-24 12:57:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's
On 2015-06-24 11:11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
On balance I think I agree that SSL renegotiation has not been worth the
trouble. And we definitely aren't testing it adequately, so if we wanted
to keep it then there's even *more* work that somebody ought to expend.
Right. Our code was nearly
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation support.
Well, that's a radical proposal, but I think we should take it seriously.
On balance I think I agree that SSL renegotiation has not been worth
On Jun 24, 2015 5:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation support.
Well, that's a radical proposal, but I think we should take it seriously.
On 2015-06-24 19:35:51 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
Our code currently uses crude hacks (c.f. comment around
SSL_clear_num_renegotiations(), and the loop around SSL_do_handshake()
in the back branches) to manage renegotiations. There's pending patches
to substantially increase the amount of
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation support.
Well, that's a radical proposal, but I think we should take it seriously.
On 2015-06-24 12:57:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
I, by now, have come to a different conclusion. I think it's time to
entirely drop the renegotiation support.
Well, that's a
14 matches
Mail list logo
