| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, 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 08:06:26 |
| Message-ID: | a1790e25-d88c-4492-aa0f-f0aeb6b05698@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19.04.24 07:37, Michael Paquier 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?
I don't think any of these need to be backpatched, at least right now.
0001 is just a cosmetic documentation tweak, has no reason to be
backpatched.
0003 adds new functionality for LibreSSL. While the code looks
straightforward, we have little knowledge about how it works in
practice. How is the buildfarm coverage of LibreSSL (with SSL tests
enabled!)? If people are keen on this, it might be better to get it
into PG17 and at least let to go through a few months of beta testing.
0004 effectively just enhances an error message for LibreSSL; there is
little reason to backpatch this.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-04-19 08:12:14 | Re: Use XLOG_CONTROL_FILE macro everywhere? |
| Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2024-04-19 08:01:54 | Re: Show WAL write and fsync stats in pg_stat_io |