2009/11/27 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The discussion I saw suggested that you need such a patch at both ends.
>
>> and likely requires a restart of both postgresql and slony afterwards...
>
> Actually, after looking through the available info about this:
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
> I think my comment above is wrong. It is useful to patch the
> *server*-side library to reject a renegotiation request. Applying that
> patch on the client side, however, is useless and simply breaks things.
I haven't looked into the details but - is there a point for us to
remove the requests for renegotiation completely? Will this help those
that *haven't* upgraded their openssl library? I realize it's not
necessarily our bug to fix, but if we can help.. :) If a patched
version of openssl ignores the renegotiation anyway, there's nothing
lost if we turn it off in postgresql, is there?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
