Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
Date
Msg-id 1228382859.20796.523.camel@hp_dx2400_1
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code  ("Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:57 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > Do we need to worry about periodic
> >>> > renegotiation of keys in be-secure.c?
> >>>
> >>> What is "keys" you mean?
> >>
> >> See the notes in that file for explanation.
> >
> > Thanks! I would check it.
> 
> The key is used only when we use SSL for the connection of
> replication. As far as I examined, secure_write() renegotiates
> the key if needed. Since walsender calls secure_write() when
> sending the WAL to the standby, the key is renegotiated
> periodically. So, I think that we don't need to worry about the
> obsolescence of the key.

Understood. Is the periodic renegotiation of keys something that would
interfere with the performance or robustness of replication? Is the
delay likely to effect sync rep? I'm just checking we've thought about
it.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: V2 of PITR performance improvement for 8.4
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code