| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |
| Date: | 2024-05-04 08:08:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1CDBCDF1-149A-4E62-8B89-872A3CE303C9@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 3 May 2024, at 21:21, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> On 03.05.24 10:39, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> They are no-ops when linking against v18, but writing an extension which
>>> targets all supported versions of postgres along with their respective
>>> supported OpenSSL versions make them still required, or am I missing something?
>
>> I don't think extensions come into play here, since this is libpq, so
>> only the shared library interface compatibility matters.
>
> Yeah, server-side extensions don't really seem to be at hazard,
> but doesn't the argument apply to client-side applications and
> libraries that want to work across different PG/OpenSSL versions?
Right, I was using "extension" a bit carelessly, what I meant was client-side
applications using libpq.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-05-04 09:20:32 | Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-05-04 06:09:04 | Re: UUID v7 |