On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:42:08AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Perhaps you are right and there is no actual reason to worry here.
I have been thinking about that for the last few days, and yes a
backpatch should be OK, so done now down to 12.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatu
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:51:09AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree with matching how SSL is handled here and in a review of the
> patch proposed didn't see any issues with it. Seems like it's probably
> something that should also be back-patched and it doesn't look terribly
> risky to do so,
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:01:43AM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:59 PM Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> I am adding Stephen Frost
> >> in CC to see if he has any comments about all this part of the logic
> >
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:01:43AM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:59 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I am adding Stephen Frost
>> in CC to see if he has any comments about all this part of the logic
>> with gssencmode.
>
> Sounds good.
Hearing nothing on this part, perhap
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:59 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am adding Stephen Frost
> in CC to see if he has any comments about all this part of the logic
> with gssencmode.
Sounds good.
> I agree that
> PQconnectPoll() has grown beyond the point of making it easy to
> maintain. I am wondering
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:59:54AM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 3:31 AM Jelte Fennema wrote:
>> Patch looks good to me. Definitely an improvement over the status quo.
>
> Thanks for the review!
I was looking at that a second time, and with fresh eyes I can see
that we w
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 3:31 AM Jelte Fennema wrote:
>
> Patch looks good to me. Definitely an improvement over the status quo.
Thanks for the review!
> Looking at the TLS error handling though I see these two lines:
>
> && conn->allow_ssl_try/* redundant? */
> && !conn->wait_ssl_try) /* red
Patch looks good to me. Definitely an improvement over the status quo.
Looking at the TLS error handling though I see these two lines:
&& conn->allow_ssl_try/* redundant? */
&& !conn->wait_ssl_try) /* redundant? */
Are they actually redundant like the comment suggests? If so, we
should proba
