| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Update minimum SSL version |
| Date: | 2019-12-03 11:08:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20191203110854.GG1634@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:10:57AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Is 1.0.1 considered a separate major from 1.0.0, in this reasoning? Because
> while retiring 1.0.0 should probably not be that terrible, 1.0.1 is still
> in very widespread use on most long term supported distributions.
1.0.1 and 1.0.0 are two different major releases in the OpenSSL world,
so my suggestion would be to cut support for everything which does not
have TLSv1.2, meaning that we keep compatibility with 1.0.1 for
a longer period.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-12-03 11:44:32 | Re: Update minimum SSL version |
| Previous Message | Pengzhou Tang | 2019-12-03 11:05:34 | Errors when update a view with conditional-INSTEAD rules |