Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I do not know at this point whether these behaviors are really the same > > bug or not, but I wonder whether it's time to consider back-patching the > > renegotiation fixes we did in 9.4. Specifically, I think maybe we should > > back-patch 31cf1a1a4, 86029b31e, and 36a3be654. (There are more changes > > in master, but since those haven't yet shipped in any released branch, > > and there's been a lot of other rework in the same area, those probably > > are not back-patch candidates.) Yes, +1 for backpatching. Don't forget 5674460b and b1aebbb6. I could reproduce problems trivially with COPY in psql without that and a small renegotiation limit, as I recall. > > Thoughts? > > I have no clear idea how safe it is to back-port these fixes. > > Just as a point of reference, we had a customer hit a problem similar > to bug #12769 on 9.3.x. I think (but am not sure) that 272923a0a may > have been intended to fix that issue. Maybe we should *also* backpatch that, then (and if so, then also its fixup 1c2b7c087). I do not think that the failure was introduced by the fixes cited above. > In a quick search, I didn't find any other complaints about > renegotiation-related issues from our customers. Other issues Andres was investigating seemed related to nonblocking connections (which as I recall are used mostly by replication code). Bug #12769 contained a link to the previous discussion. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
