Il venerdì 09 gennaio 2009 20:58:39 Kristian Nielsen ha scritto: > 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).
Still I vote for "kill the limit", if it's needed for security than can be re- added later, left with default to unlimited and more shaped around security. For reference last time I've seen a bug related to this was when some kde4 applications started to use mysql as a backend. The default limit of max_allowed_packet is ridicolously low and it created random failures . You know the best ones to find and debug. > > [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
