Eric Day <[email protected]> writes: > Do people actually use max_allowed_packet as a limit? It seems to me > like a "hack" of how to limit large requests. > > Unless someone has a good reason to keep it, I propose we remove it > in the current protocol (always use the maximum size). Also, the new > protocol draft currently does not have any limits (chunked packets).
I believe an important rationale for the max_allowed_packet is to prevent denial-of-service, since all of the data of eg. a blob value has to be materialised in the server (so without max_allowed_packet client can allocate arbitrary amounts of server memory). [Whether that is important for Drizzle I am not sure; I get the feeling that the philosophy in Drizzle is to trust the client, which is fine with me, just wanted to mention this point in case some were unaware.] - Kristian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
