Re: Missing include <openssl/x509.h> in be-secure-openssl.c?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 近藤雄太 <kondo(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, buildfarm(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
Subject: Re: Missing include <openssl/x509.h> in be-secure-openssl.c?
Date: 2021-11-04 03:37:47
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKZiYKHqGQr+zQFQ0=BdOzxBmXgpvi3cN_BZ1kmHZKs8Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> But I don't get the point about where HEAD is different from v14?
> be-secure-openssl.c isn't.

I don't understand what's going on and I don't have the headers to
look at, but I was thinking that WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN must be causing a
different state to be reached that somehow leaves the bad definition
of X509_NAME in place. It's confusing though, because you'd hope
that'd cause *less* stuff to get defined...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-11-04 03:45:26 Re: Missing include <openssl/x509.h> in be-secure-openssl.c?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-11-04 03:33:46 Re: Missing include <openssl/x509.h> in be-secure-openssl.c?