| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more |
| Date: | 2016-06-28 01:27:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRUtQz+Yr8Q=M25BJ9n_UsXKFtFzPTxNBNbumFJMcwj6g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
> Yes, we could do that, but I do not think we should check for the existence
> of a backwards compatibility macro. Actually I think we may want to skip
> much of the OpenSSL initialization code when compiling against OpenSSL 1.1
> since they have now added automatic initialization of the library. Instead I
> think we should check for something we actually will use like SSL_CTX_new().
Agreed. Changing the routine being checked may be a good idea in this
case, and we surely want to check for something that is used in the
frontend and the backend. So why not something more generic like
SSL_read or SSL_write?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-06-28 02:26:33 | Re: fixing subplan/subquery confusion |
| Previous Message | Akash Agrawal | 2016-06-28 00:54:35 | Re: How to kill a Background worker and Its metadata |