On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I thought the next thing we'd report would be the recovery
>> conflict, not any bizarre can't-abort-the-transaction scenario.
>
> Well, if we discard it because we're too lazy to implement error message
> merging, that's OK. Presumably it'll still get into the postmaster log.
OK, that's reasonable.
>>> (Hm, but I wonder whether there are any hard
>>> timing constraints in the ssl protocol ... although hopefully xact abort
>>> won't ever take long enough that that's a real problem.)
>
>> That would be incredibly broken.
>
> Think "authentication timeout". I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the
> remote end would drop the connection if certain events didn't come back
> reasonably promptly. There might even be security reasons for that,
> ie, somebody could brute-force a key if you give them long enough.
> (But this is all speculation; I don't actually know SSL innards.)
I would be really surprised if aborting a transaction takes long
enough to mess up SSL. I mean, there could be a network delay at any
time, too.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
