| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removal of support for OpenSSL 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 |
| Date: | 2020-01-06 02:17:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20200106021703.GG3598@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 09:22:47AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not sure I see why there's a connection between moving up
> the minimum Python version and minimum OpenSSL version. Nobody is
> installing bleeding-edge Postgres on RHEL5, not even me ;-), so I
> don't especially buy Peter's line of reasoning.
It seems to me that the line of reasoning was to consider RHEL5 in the
garbage for all our dependencies, in a consistent way.
> I'm perfectly okay with doing both things in HEAD, I just don't
> see that doing one is an argument for or against doing the other.
Yes, right. That would be the case if we had direct dependencies
between both, but that has never been the case AFAIK.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-01-06 02:56:23 | doc: alter table references bogus table-specific planner parameters |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-01-06 02:01:45 | Re: Commit fest manager for 2020-01 |