| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 vs old branches |
| Date: | 2023-02-08 04:37:54 |
| Message-ID: | 3419941.1675831074@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:28:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3 *is*
>> supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
>> not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds that pre-1.1.1 is
>> also supported there. On the whole though, it seems more useful
>> today for that test to pass with 3.x than for it to pass with 0.9.8.
>> And I can't see investing effort to make it do both (but if Peter
>> wants to, I won't stand in the way).
> Cutting support for 0.9.8 in oldest branches would be a very risky
> move, but as you say, if that only involves a failure in the SSL
> tests while still allowing anything we have to work, fine by me to
> live with that.
Question: is anybody around here still testing with 0.9.8 (or 1.0.x)
at all? The systems I had that had that version on them are dead.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-02-08 04:47:58 | Re: Assertion failure in SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-02-08 04:27:27 | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible |