On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 06:13:36PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > 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.
We'd need to be triply confident that we know better than the DBA before removing flexibility in back branches. +1 for just changing the default. Suppose some security policy mandates a particular key rotation interval; the minor release would force an awkward decision on that user. DBAs who have customized ssl_renegotiation_limit are more likely than most to notice the release note and make an informed decision. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
