Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:11 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> My current feeling is that this is OK to put in HEAD but I think the
>> risk-reward ratio isn't very good for the back branches. Even with
>> an OpenSSL version where this makes a difference, the problematic
>> behavior is pretty hard to hit. So I'm a bit inclined to do nothing
>> in the back branches.
> Shouldn't we also back-patch the one-line change adding
> pqHandleSendFailure()?
As I said before, I don't like that patch: at best it's an abuse of
pqHandleSendFailure, because that function is only meant to be called
at start of a query cycle. It wouldn't be hard to break this usage and
not notice, especially given that we often don't test back-patched
changes very carefully in the back branches if they seem OK in HEAD.
Possibly we could consider back-patching the more aggressive patch
once it's survived v12 beta testing, and just living with the issue
till then. Given what we know now, I don't think this is a big
problem for the field: how many people use SSL on local connections?
regards, tom lane
