On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:44 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > > 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?
Yeah, now that we understand this properly I agree this is unlikely to bother anyone in real life. I just want to make the build farm green. I wondered about ssl_max_protocol_version = 'TLSv1.2', but that GUC's too new. Another option would be to change the "command_fails_like" pattern to tolerate both errors in v11. -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
