| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |
| Date: | 2024-04-19 06:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | A0D842BA-864D-497B-A062-923E5610D40C@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 19 Apr 2024, at 07:37, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:53:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> If everything is addressed, I agree that 0001, 0003, and 0004 can go into
>> PG17, the rest later.
>
> About the PG17 bits, would you agree about a backpatch? Or perhaps
> you disagree?
If we want to 0001 can be baclpatched to v15, 0004 to v13 and 0003 all the way.
I don't have strong opinions either way.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-19 07:00:28 | Re: Sequence Access Methods, round two |
| Previous Message | Tender Wang | 2024-04-19 06:41:26 | Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that |