Magnus Hagander wrote: > Actually, nevermind that one. Here's a patch I worked up from your > description, and that turns out to be fairly similar to yours in what > it does I think - except I'm not rearranging the code into a separate > function. We already have a while-loop.
Thanks. The only comment I have is that the hard-code 100000 could be USECS_PER_SEC. > See attached context diff, and I've also included a diff without > whitespace changes since the majority of the diff is otherwise coming > from indenting the code one tab... > > (so far untested, I seem to have deleted my test-instance of the > radius server, but I figured I should post my attempt anyway) I can set up a test server if you want. > Also, my patch does not change from log to warning - note that warning > is actually *below* log when it comes to the logfile (see > log_min_messages comments in postgresql.conf). I keep making that > mistake myself... OK. My only interest there was to ensure that a DoS attack wouldn't result in the log being flooded with "invalid packet" messages. Alan DeKok. -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
