On 17 October 2015 at 14:39, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Having to backpatch a new parameter to all supported versions seems far > > more invasive than adding a guc that can only be set to one value. > > Indeed. It is completely stupid to do this in any other way except > by reinstating ssl_renegotiation_limit as an ordinary GUC variable > whose min and max are both zero. >
Agreed, my suggestion requires we can set that GUC, but we can set not-in-file also. > Quite aside from the implementation effort of inventing some > single-purpose kluge to do it another way, that solution would also > cover the complaints we're doubtless gonna get that "SET > ssl_renegotiation_limit = 0" doesn't work anymore. > Agreed, single purpose kluge is a bad thing. Rough patch for the extensible, backpatchable, non-invasive proposal attached. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
startup_option_driver.v1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
