Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1228382859.20796.523.camel@hp_dx2400_1 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code ("Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:57 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.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. Understood. Is the periodic renegotiation of keys something that would interfere with the performance or robustness of replication? Is the delay likely to effect sync rep? I'm just checking we've thought about it. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: