Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?
Date
Msg-id a1790e25-d88c-4492-aa0f-f0aeb6b05698@eisentraut.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?
List 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.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Date:
Subject: Re: Show WAL write and fsync stats in pg_stat_io
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Use XLOG_CONTROL_FILE macro everywhere?