Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Actually, nevermind that one. Here's a patch I worked up from your
> description, and that turns out to be fairly similar to yours in what
> it does I think - except I'm not rearranging the code into a separate
> function. We already have a while-loop.
Thanks. The only comment I have is that the hard-code 100000 could be
USECS_PER_SEC.
> See attached context diff, and I've also included a diff without
> whitespace changes since the majority of the diff is otherwise coming
> from indenting the code one tab...
>
> (so far untested, I seem to have deleted my test-instance of the
> radius server, but I figured I should post my attempt anyway)
I can set up a test server if you want.
> Also, my patch does not change from log to warning - note that warning
> is actually *below* log when it comes to the logfile (see
> log_min_messages comments in postgresql.conf). I keep making that
> mistake myself...
OK. My only interest there was to ensure that a DoS attack wouldn't
result in the log being flooded with "invalid packet" messages.
Alan DeKok.