| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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 16:02:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3491975.1675872144@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> Op 08-02-2023 om 05:37 schreef Tom Lane:
>> 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.
> I've hoarded an old centos 6.1 system that I don't really use anymore
> but sometimes (once every few weeks, I guess) start up and build master
> on, for instance to test with postgres_fdw/replication. Such a build
> would include a make check, and I think I would have noticed any fails.
> That system says:
> OpenSSL> OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013
> FWIW, just now I built & ran check-world for 15 and 16 with
> PG_TEST_EXTRA=ssl (which I didn't use before). Both finished ok.
Oh, that's good to know. That means that the newer form of this
test works with 1.0.1, which means that we'd only lose test
compatibility with 0.9.x OpenSSL. That bothers me not at all
in 2023.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-08 16:15:19 | Re: Why cann't simplify stable function in planning phase? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-08 15:57:57 | Re: Named Operators |