On 2015-06-27 12:10:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> +1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches. > > > The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the > > dry if they've uncommented the default value, or changed it. That > > doesn't seem nice to me. > > I think at least 99% of the people who are using a nondefault value of > ssl_renegotiation_limit are using zero and so would have no problem with > this at all. Possibly 100% of them; there's not really much use-case for > changing from 512MB to some other nonzero value, is there?
While still at 2ndq I've seen some increase it to nonzero values to cope with the connection breaks. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
