| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility |
| Date: | 2022-06-29 10:59:32 |
| Message-ID: | D6D2A896-07BE-4427-BB8D-74580D36D290@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 29 Jun 2022, at 11:44, Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
>
>> See upthread in ef5c7896-20cb-843f-e91e-0ee5f7fd932e(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
>
> I saw that section, but I thought that only applied before you
> backpatched the actual fixes to PG13 and below. I mean there's no
> reason anymore not to compile those older versions with OpenSSL 3.0,
> right? If so, it seems confusing for the build to spit out warnings
> that indicate the contrary.
The project isn't automatically fixing compiler warnings or library deprecation
warnings in back-branches. I guess one could make the argument for this case
given how widespread OpenSSL 3.0, but it comes with a significant testing
effort to ensure that all back-branches behave correctly with all version of
OpenSSL so it's not for free (it should be, but with OpenSSL I would personally
not trust that). Also, PG12 and below had 0.9.8 as minimum version.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marcos Pegoraro | 2022-06-29 11:00:31 | Re: better error description on logical replication |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2022-06-29 10:48:57 | Re: Hardening PostgreSQL via (optional) ban on local file system access |