Re: [HACKERS] \copy: unexpected response (4)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Best <nbest(at)ci(dot)uchicago(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] \copy: unexpected response (4)
Date: 2009-08-07 21:45:00
Message-ID: 449.1249681500@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Neil Best <nbest(at)ci(dot)uchicago(dot)edu> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> BTW, the "SSL renegotiation failure" bit
>> suggests that it could have been an OpenSSL bug not a real network
>> lossage, so you might want to see how up-to-date your openssl libraries
>> are.

> Thanks for your comments, Tom. The operation seems more reliable if I
> move the data to the server and do it across a local connection, which
> I presume does not involve SSL, so that may be the weak link as you
> surmise. Would you expect the SSL library problem more likely to be
> on the server or the client, or is it just hard to say?

You're talking like you've found this to be repeatable. Is it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christine Desmuke 2009-08-07 22:29:23 Re: Make check fails on 8.3.7
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-08-07 21:42:10 Re: Changing referenced primary key column type

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-07 22:02:32 Re: Alpha releases: How to tag
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-08-07 21:43:18 Re: Durability?