| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,<gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: beta3 & the open items list |
| Date: | 2010-06-20 20:01:04 |
| Message-ID: | 4C1E2D300200002500032666@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
> Can someone tell me what we are going to do about firewalls that
> impose their own rules outside of the control of the DBA?
Has anyone actually seen a firewall configured for something so
stupid as to allow *almost* all the various packets involved in using
a TCP connection, but which suppressed just keepalive packets? That
seems to be what you're suggesting is the risk; it's an outlandish
enough suggestion that I think the burden of proof is on you to show
that it happens often enough to make this a worthless change.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2010-06-20 20:44:20 | Re: beta3 & the open items list |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-06-20 17:39:31 | Re: Small FSM is too large |