On 2015-06-27 12:10:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2015-06-27 15:07:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> +1 for removing on master and just disabling on back-branches.
>
> > The problem with that approach is that it leaves people hanging in the
> > dry if they've uncommented the default value, or changed it. That
> > doesn't seem nice to me.
>
> I think at least 99% of the people who are using a nondefault value of
> ssl_renegotiation_limit are using zero and so would have no problem with
> this at all. Possibly 100% of them; there's not really much use-case for
> changing from 512MB to some other nonzero value, is there?
While still at 2ndq I've seen some increase it to nonzero values to cope
with the connection breaks.
Andres