Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code

From: "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
Date: 2008-12-04 08:57:23
Message-ID: 3f0b79eb0812040057tb339dafh2b1c7d97d57e788f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)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. Am I missing something?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-12-04 08:58:33 Re: In-place upgrade: catalog side
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2008-12-04 08:36:33 Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard