From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:11:32 +0800
Message-ID: <041901c2ffd8$0e1018f0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal> (raw)
References: <7334.1050015002@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20030411011557.GJ79923@perrin.int.nxad.com>
<8486.1050028983@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Yeah, I looked at mod_ssl before sending in my gripe. AFAICT Apache
> *never* forces a renegotiation based on amount of data sent --- all that
> code is intended just to handle transitions between different webpages
> with different security settings. So is that a precedent we can follow;
> or is it an optimization based on the assumption that not a lot of data
> will be transferred on any one web page?
How about a GUC variable:
ssl_renegotiation = 0 # no unnecessary renegotiation
ssl_renegotiation = 64000 # renegotiate every 64000 bytes
Chris
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: chriskl@familyhealth.com.au, sean@chittenden.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation
In-Reply-To: <041901c2ffd8$0e1018f0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox