Tom Lane wrote: > Karl Denninger <k...@denninger.net> writes: > >> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> >>> how exactly did you measure the 1GB? >>> > > >> The reported copy table size in the SLON log. It exceeded 1GB for two >> of the tables the successfully came over before the error. >> > > Hmm, I'm not sure how Slony comes by that number, so this might or might > not be meaningful. I agree with the other respondents that the symptom > sounds exactly like broken renegotiation --- the earliest security > patches to close the openssl CVE hole resulted in failures exactly like > this whenever the server tried to force key renegotiation. You might > check whether libssl was recently updated on either the server or client > machine. > > regards, tom lane > I've turned off SSL for now and the copy appears to be proceeding normally. I'll see if I can isolate this further once I have the replication stabilized again - I have a test box I can set up as a third node off one of the others on a higher-bandwidth connection, which will make testing this in some more detail easier and faster.
I've also shut off SSL renegotiation for now and will leave it off until I can figure out what's up - if it breaks during my testing with renegotiation off (or not) I'll update here. -- Karl
<<attachment: karl.vcf>>
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
