| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 vs old branches |
| Date: | 2023-02-08 21:58:48 |
| Message-ID: | e44a59a2-84b7-e35f-a304-17b4769c644b@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-02-08 We 10:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 07.02.23 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3*is*
>> supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
>> not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds that pre-1.1.1 is
>> also supported there. On the whole though, it seems more useful
>> today for that test to pass with 3.x than for it to pass with 0.9.8.
>
> Ok, let's do it.
Done
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-02-08 22:03:49 | Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1 |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-02-08 21:27:46 | Re: Wrong rows estimations with joins of CTEs slows queries by more than factor 500 |